• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by ASB View Post
    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.

    Comment


      Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
      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.
      Last edited by smalldog; 8 September 2010, 09:08.

      Comment


        Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
        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.

        Comment


          Originally posted by ASB View Post
          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.

          Comment


            Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
            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
            Last edited by smalldog; 8 September 2010, 13:20.

            Comment


              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!
              I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

              Comment


                I'm still trying to work out if a CN scribbled in pencil is a legal document
                'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
                Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post
                  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?

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
                    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"

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by smalldog View Post
                      if its pencil cant you rub it out?
                      You found out my master plan!
                      'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
                      Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X