BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Trouble is their starting point will almost certainly be that you were negligent. You should have known that had they known the details and opened an aspect enquiry then you would have known that they would have asked some questions thus were negligent in not providing the answers to the unasked questions.

I would wish anybody challenging a discovery assessment the best of luck though. It can be done.

What about people who have received CNs without any prior enquiry? In a significant number of cases, the only thing people have received is a CN.

Presumably HMRC will argue this was just an administrative oversight.

[smalldog]

What about people who have received CNs without any prior enquiry? In a significant number of cases, the only thing people have received is a CN.

Presumably HMRC will argue this was just an administrative oversight.

After doing some of my own investigations I am actually coming to the conclusion that EVEN IF WE LOSE after all the appeals, ECHR, then supreme court then they will still have a job to get all of these through the tax courts...HMRC have got a big hill to climb IMHO..For me alone I have at least two questionable tax years SA's. They cant also say they opened 2001 and 2002 as they were ok but for some reason 3 and 4 were negligent, they all contained the same information.

[ASB]

What about people who have received CNs without any prior enquiry? In a significant number of cases, the only thing people have received is a CN.

Presumably HMRC will argue this was just an administrative oversight.

Cn's without prior enquiry just seems plain wrong. How can they close an enquiry with a CN when they haven't even started an enquiry....

Certainly I think the whole issue of discover for those affected by it is worth taking advice on. I did in a similar position, however the sums involved were relatively modest and the advice was that the cost of fighting it would almost certainly exceed the tax at stake; so I decided not to persue it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Cn's without prior enquiry just seems plain wrong. How can they close an enquiry with a CN when they haven't even started an enquiry....

This is purely speculation but I think in the hurry to get CNs out to the 2500 people, after the legislation was passed, corners may have been cut. Quite a lot of people received incorrect or incomplete paperwork.

I get the impression, from inside info, that the people involved in Special Investigations were bored and fed up with doing all the admin, which would explain the plethera of mistakes and errors.

These people get a kick out of bullying and intimidation, not endless paperwork.

Also, some of the task was farmed out to local tax offices who, in many cases, made a right hash of it.

In short, it's the usual incompetence we've experienced from day one.

[smalldog]

This is purely speculation but I think in the hurry to get CNs out to the 2500 people, after the legislation was passed, corners may have been cut. Quite a lot of people received incorrect or incomplete paperwork.

I get the impression, from inside info, that the people involved in Special Investigations were bored and fed up with doing all the admin, which would explain the plethera of mistakes and errors.

These people get a kick out of bullying and intimidation, not endless paperwork.

Also, some of the task was farmed out to local tax offices who, in many cases, made a right hash of it.

In short, it's the usual incompetence we've experienced from day one.

its that incompetence that may have done us all a huge favour! If it comes to that of course...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11230325

interesting para:

The tax authority also confirmed that it would not charge interest on underpayments under £2,000. Repayments could be made over a period of up to three years.

I therefore assume we would be offered the same courtesy

[BolshieBastard]

I got a CN for one year in a completely incorrect name.

Does this mean HMRC ****ed up yet again and this particular CN is null and void?

HMRC = bunch of unts.

Oh, and did I hear David Gauke saying on the radio the other day that it was 'perfectly reasonable fo HMRC' to demand back tax from people who it had underestimated the tax payable?

This the same David who in opposition mentioned how unreasonable retrospective BN66 was? You hypocritical unt, David!

[SantaClaus]

I'm still trying to work out if a CN scribbled in pencil is a legal document

[smalldog]

I'm still trying to work out if a CN scribbled in pencil is a legal document

if its pencil cant you rub it out?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Oh, and did I hear David Gauke saying on the radio the other day that it was 'perfectly reasonable fo HMRC' to demand back tax from people who it had underestimated the tax payable?

He spoke about it in the Commons today.

BBC News - Tax letters: Write-offs would be 'unaffordable'

Mr Gauke said that the repayments would be sorted out "as painlessly as possible"

[SantaClaus]

if its pencil cant you rub it out?

You found out my master plan!