BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[KiwiGuy]

made me laugh

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benscott/3677132759/

[KiwiGuy]

made me laugh

this made me laugh

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benscott/3677132759/

[stuffed]

CN Arrived

Large Brown Envelope - 2nd class mail. Could only mean one thing.
Thanks a lot Revenue for the summer present.
Numbers are pretty damn scary given my exposure goes back to 2002/03.

Just a couple of questions:

1) I presume the numbers have not had any interest applied and one needs to use DR's calculations to give an idea on the true exposure???

2) Only goes up to 06/07 - does that mean there is still a full years exposure that the revenue have not allowed for? Is it a full year or partial year that I am looking at? Was in the scheme right till the end when the buget law forced the change, so it would be helpful if I could get an idea on how much more exposure might come my way.

Looking forward to the fight on this. There is some great determined people on board, and I think the revenue thought we would be an easy soft option that would roll over.
Fat chance - they are in for the fight of their lives on this one.

[swede]

beat that?

Large Brown Envelope - 2nd class mail. Could only mean one thing.
Thanks a lot Revenue for the summer present.

There's no good time for these to turn up, but mine arrived on Christmas eve.

Deliberate? You know what, I think so.

[smalldog]

There's no good time for these to turn up, but mine arrived on Christmas eve.

Deliberate? You know what, I think so.

its always shocking, thats OUR government supposedly and they are spiteful, vindictive mo fo's..its a disgrace...but who can or will call them to task over all this?

[Emigre]

Large Brown Envelope - 2nd class mail. Could only mean one thing.
Thanks a lot Revenue for the summer present.
Numbers are pretty damn scary given my exposure goes back to 2002/03.

Just a couple of questions:

1) I presume the numbers have not had any interest applied and one needs to use DR's calculations to give an idea on the true exposure???

2) Only goes up to 06/07 - does that mean there is still a full years exposure that the revenue have not allowed for? Is it a full year or partial year that I am looking at? Was in the scheme right till the end when the buget law forced the change, so it would be helpful if I could get an idea on how much more exposure might come my way.

Looking forward to the fight on this. There is some great determined people on board, and I think the revenue thought we would be an easy soft option that would roll over.
Fat chance - they are in for the fight of their lives on this one.

Welcome to the Closure Notice Club! Make sure you send a copy off to MontP for them to appeal them on your behalf.

I guess what's included in the CN may vary from one local tax office to another but mine certainly included interest so take another look. The detail showed the recalculated liability and then interest on it. If not, then you are right to use DR's figures on the opening post of this thread.

If you were in to the end, as I was, you will be due another CN at some point for 2007/08. If you really need to know what the potential liability is for that year you can ask MontP - its much easier just to look at the previous year and know that its about the same number (or more if your Trust was more generous to you) etc. I think the scheme closed on 12 March 2008 so to all intent and purposes it was a full year.

We are in the right here, and whatever anyone's views on the use of aggressive tax avoidance schemes, the behaviour by the Treasury and HMRC has been deplorable offering us the moral high ground as well as the legal position.

When all of this is over and we have won I hope that the perpetrators will be appropriately brought to account for their sins.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Can't understand why HMRC are still sending out Closure Notices when there is a JR pending.

Are they stupid or something?

[PlaneSailing]

Can't understand why HMRC are still sending out Closure Notices when there is a JR pending.

Are they stupid or something?

I couldn't possibly comment!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

1) I presume the numbers have not had any interest applied and one needs to use DR's calculations to give an idea on the true exposure???

Here is a quick rule of thumb as to whether interest has been added.

Look at the trust income for the first year. Let's say it's £100,000.

If no interest has been added, then the tax liability would be about 35% ie. £35,000.

With interest added, this would be hiked by around 46% ie. raising the total liability to around £50,000.

The difference with and without interest is so glaring that it should be obvious.

[stuffed]

Unfortunately it seems to be no interest added.

Just figures for "Original Tax Due" + "Increase in Tax Due" + "Tax Due after the Ammendment"

So a lot more liability to factor in.
Will chat with MontP now and ensure they challenge it in time.

Thanks for the clarifications