BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Biggles]

Refund from HMRC

Good luck on getting your refund. I'm due a refund of over £4000 and have tried on several occassions to request it via the web site. On all occassions it just gets ignored.

My accountant chased it up and due to this ongoing BN66 debate, they were informed that my account was "on hold" so they were not going to issue a refund.

It is very annoying as the years that I have over paid are not caught up in the BN66 years.

If you get your refund, please us all know how you did it.

Thanks.

[smalldog]

I presume that if and when they give you the refund it will include interest?!!!

[Maddog]

Time to send "the boys" in ......

I presume that if and when they give you the refund it will include interest?!!!

I have been due a refund for a number of years and have requested them several times via the HMRC gateway - no response, no refund.

I know a few "boys" who are well versed at "encouraging" people to re-pay their debts (no, none of them are ex HMRC). I intend engaging them soon to resolve this sorry situation (just as soon as they are released, for being a little too assertive on their last recovery mission).

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Tax refunds

I spoke to MontP about this some time ago, and it seems to be hit and miss (random!) whether HMRC give it to you or not.

If they refuse on the grounds of BN66, then I would try the official complaints procedure.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTax...RC/DG_10014956
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/LEAFLETS/c12.htm

In your complaint, it's also worth mentioning that you know of people in the same situation who have received a refund ie. proving that you are being treated unfairly and discriminated against.

You've got nothing to lose!

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

IT Contractors hit again

More evidence (as if you needed any) how this Government is giving the IT contractor community another good kicking:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8276253.stm

So, IR35, BN66 and now ICT's.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

More on refunds

Just spoke to MontP again about this.

There is still no consistency from HMRC on this. Some people are getting refunds; others are being denied. There is no pattern, rhyme or reason to it.

One guy complained that he was out of work, desperately needed the money, and was feeling suicidal. They eventually relented and gave him a refund.

This seems to be discretionary.

The best tactic might be to put a complaint in writing, pointing out that you know they have granted other people in the same situation a refund. Perhaps give them a good sob story.

If they still won't play ball, then complain to the adjudicator or your Member of Parliament.

My guess is that if you push hard enoough, you'll get it.

[Maddog]

HMRC Refund

One good thing about HMRC not paying my Tax refund, is my misses can't spend it !

[DonkeyRhubarb]

One good thing about HMRC not paying my Tax refund, is my misses can't spend it !

Unfortunately, what's not so good is that the tightfisted gits are only paying 0.5% interest.

http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-new...e-formula.html

[TaxDude]

Freedom of Information response

Not sure if everyones response included this little attachment:

"Maurice Padmore was a UK resident who worked in the UK as a patent agent. He was also a member of a Jersey partnership that had been specifically set up to receive some of the income from Mr Padmore’s activities as a patent agent. In line with the law as it was generally understood at the time, the Inland Revenue sought to tax him on his share of the foreign partnership’s profits. But, in December 1986, the courts upheld Mr Padmore’s claim that his share of the profits was not taxable in the UK because, under the terms of the tax treaty between Jersey and the UK, none of the partnership’s profits could be taxed in the UK – even those of its UK resident partners.
This decision came as a surprise not only to the Inland Revenue but also to the tax authorities in other countries party to the UK’s tax treaties, and to most tax advisers, as it over-turned the virtually universally-held view that, unless explicitly specified, tax treaties did not remove a country’s right to tax its own residents on their income.
The problem was not confined to the UK/Jersey tax treaty and legislation was passed in the next Finance Act (No.2 of 1987) that made it clear that UK resident members of foreign partnerships could not use any of the UK’s treaties to avoid UK tax on their share of a foreign partnership’s income.
During the debate on the 1987 Finance Bill, the then Financial Secretary, Norman Lamont, observed that all the measure did was “to restore the general understanding of the law to what it was before [the] decision of the High Court”. For that reason, the legislation was made fully retrospective (except for Mr Padmore). The OECD has also since issued guidance supporting our view of how tax treaties are to be interpreted in this respect.
The current scheme purports to get round the 1987 legislation by creating foreign trusts and then having the foreign trustees (rather than the UK residents as in the earlier scheme) form a foreign partnership. The partnership’s profits still, however, effectively belong to the UK residents as they are the beneficiaries of the trusts."

[PlaneSailing]

Not sure if everyones response included this little attachment:

"...The OECD has also since issued guidance supporting our view of how tax treaties are to be interpreted in this respect.
The current scheme purports to get round the 1987 legislation by creating foreign trusts and then having the foreign trustees (rather than the UK residents as in the earlier scheme) form a foreign partnership. The partnership’s profits still, however, effectively belong to the UK residents as they are the beneficiaries of the trusts."

Of course, if they really believed that, they wouldn't have needed
to implement BN66 as they could have gone to court and won in 10 minutes.

IMHO BN66 is an admission that the scheme works.