BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[nuffsaid]

Think so yes. And they didn't take into account any NI already paid (e.g. from employment income), so you may end up getting charged two lots. When I asked HMRC about this they said I would have to claim it back from the contribution agency.

FAVOUR PLEASE: Could some-one with an inside link to MontP confirm that the CN's include NI - I know my email would be ignored for several months (along with my other emails).
I'm about to get a a CTD (probably) and want to make sure I cover the right amount.

[NO TO RETRO]

Even if the chance of winning is small, it's still a chance.

Settling now would be like burning your lottery ticket before the draw.

I really can't see any good argument for settling.

1) if you haven't got the money it's not an option anyway

2) if you've got the money then invest it, CTD or pay on account

Remember Sods Law

What's likely to happen if you settle?

Agree with you on that one DR.
Just so I understand this correctly and know how much to get a CTD for - my online HMRC account shows the amounts for the various years under investigation are 'Suspended on appeal' and under the Description: 'Less other adjustments'. Is this the whole amount or does interest need to be applied to these amounts? Or should I just speak with my local compliance office?

[deckster]

Even if the chance of winning is small, it's still a chance.

Settling now would be like burning your lottery ticket before the draw.

I really can't see any good argument for settling.

1) if you haven't got the money it's not an option anyway

2) if you've got the money then invest it, CTD or pay on account

Remember Sods Law

What's likely to happen if you settle?

I'm one of those who cannot pay. My liability including interest is well into six figures, and is more than the equity in my house. If we lose, then I and my family am entirely at the mercy of HMRC.

So realistically, I have nothing to lose from fighting on and that is, more than likely, what I will do. However, and this is troubling me greatly at the moment, what if I could go to HMRC, explain the situation, and negotiate a deal that allows me to keep my house no matter what. You have to see how attractive that would be - an end to the uncertainty, no matter what the actual financial impact is at the end of the day. The only problem is that it would have to be one hell of a good deal, which I suspect is rather unlikely to happen...

[elpinar]

Think so yes. And they didn't take into account any NI already paid .

but self employed poepl only pay a stamnp dont they .. so negliible NI

[Retro]

I want to retire - get me out of here!

Even if the chance of winning is small, it's still a chance.

Settling now would be like burning your lottery ticket before the draw.

I really can't see any good argument for settling.

1) if you haven't got the money it's not an option anyway

2) if you've got the money then invest it, CTD or pay on account

Remember Sods Law

What's likely to happen if you settle?

You're right - there is no point in settling unless there is some negotiation and a reduction in the size of the bill. HMRC are not certain of winning and that in itself should allow for a reduction. Even if HMRC were to win, the interest charges should really have started to accrue on the day that the retrospective law was introduced, not from way back when. I'll wait for the correspondance from Montpelier, but I need to resolve this before I'm much older.

[BolshieBastard]

and register for which service ?self assessemnt online ?

Yes but they'll have to send you a PIN before you can view your details.

[PlaneSailing]

The law moves in mysterious ways.

Not directly relevent, but evidence that the Court of Appeal
can do some strange things....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/...ts/8487326.stm

[MKing]

Somewhat Confused

Sorry to be thick, but can we just clarify what was won/lost.

Here's my understanding:

HMRC are of the opinion that the change in BN66 was a clarification.
Huitson (and Montpelier) attempted to use ECHR laws to say that even though this was a clarification, HMRC were not justified in applying back-tax because they had been put on notice (by the SA payer) that they had been using the scheme and thus because HMRC hadn't challenged the SA they were not justified in claiming back tax before the point at which the clarification was made ?

The Judge in the ECHR managed to firmly dismiss the notion that BN66 was a clarification to Padmore, HOWEVER, this case was not challenging whether or not HMRC were applying a clarification. It tested whether HMRC were justified in applying back tax - to the maximum extent before the application of BN66.

Given that, the Judge was probably quite right in his judgement based on earlier case law - and the fundamental tenet "Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law".

I haven't really followed the earlier cases very thoroughly but have the appeals to date covered the clarification vs change in law problem unequivocally ? If not the Judge's notes would open up the possibility of striking this out. If it can be shown to be a change in law, then they have no right to back-tax.

If they do then we really have changed into a Banana Republic

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

A bit of logic

Folks,

If you were to be made bankrupt, then you're future earning potential goes down the pan. If for example you contract in the banking sector, you'll be out of a job. Upshot is future taxes will suffer. Zapping 2500 folks which hits the Exchequer prospectively aint that good.

So, it's worth considering when all the dust settles then whatever happens steamrollering in back tax claims gets offset by future tax losses.

Somewhere in all of this, there is logic but it's whether the folks from the Dark Side figure this or want to apply it.

Remember it's only been 24hrs. No need to decide to do anything at the moment.

[nick4notax]

HMRC are sh1te

And sorry to disappoint HMRC.

I'm not going anywhere. I'm in it to the bitter end now.

Yep, I'm with you there. Those b*stards will NEVER win this, and they know it. Just because some junior judge kissed butt doesn't mean they've won this. Far from it !!