BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The title of the editorial in today's Sunday Times says it all really.

High Taxes Breed Clever Dodgers

[RingStinger]

Slightly cart before horse, but knowledge is power as they say. Naturally there have been postings here about the Doomsday Scenario (and we're a long way from that yet IMO). But as per my last post, there are all sorts of considerations when debts come into play..

An interesting couple of posts there, thanks for that.

[SantaClaus]

Thanks Freelancer.

I wonder what "there were technical problems with the assistance provided [to HMRC]" really means?

I think "technical problems" is political non-blame speak for they fecked up

[Freelancer]

IOM search and seizure unlawful - consequences

I've read elsewhere that:-
"If there have been compulsory redundancies that can be attributed to the very highly publicised search of Montpelier's offices (extensive national news coverage in the UK), and that search was unlawful, I expect the redundant can sue if they get a smart brief.

If Montpelier have genuinely had to reduce staff by forty then the shareholders probably have an absolute right to claim the full proportion of the equity value that those staff constituted, and a proportion of future dividends.

I note that there is a training programme to be undertaken before a volunteer can be sworn in to the specials "You will be required to attend an evening assessment at Police Headquarters, followed by a period of training, currently 5 Saturdays, prior to taking up your duties as a Special Constable.". If the Police swore in untrained officers there is probably a little lever there. Specials are paid, 10 pence per hour! Were IoM work permits therefore necessary?

What if IoMG has disclosed or permitted access to HMRC any of the information seized (especially if they allowed HMRC to enter the premises as "Special Constables")? The subjects of that information will probably have a nice case to reclaim their losses (or their insurers).

A real rats nest of opportunities. Company, Staff, Shareholders, Customers all wronged. Sounds like some law firms could be on a good ticket. Could be a very big bill by the time all affected parties have had their way"

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thanks again Freelancer.

It seems very unfair that the Isle of Man Government should bear all of the brunt for this when it was wholly instigated by HMRC.

I hope HMRC do not get off scott free as usual.

[screwthis]

PSQM, I've been thinking since all this started and I'm not the only one. I just want to ensure that I understand as best I can what the options are if the worst happens. And whatever I think I know is little substitute for what the law demands. Hence why I've gone looking for Solicitors. The saving grace is that as a result, in the worst case, HMRC are not the Law and whether they like it or not, there is a process to follow and it is not a foregone conclusion of what rhetoric they spout automatically applies. To get you they too have to jump through various hoops. Not a reason to think we can get them if the worst happens. But as I said, HMRC cannot make you bankrupt. They cannot take your house just because they send you a letter threatening the same. And they most certainly cannot send round a qualification-free grunt and demand your telly. If they do, then you can read them the Riot Act and go after them. That would be a rather nice change.

What happens for those of us that have the money needed to pay in a savings account?

We can't just "read them them Riot Act" and say we're not going to pay should we hit the end of the legal challenge.

One option would be to pay down the mortgage so that there isn't enough in bank accounts to meet the demand. But then it removes the option of being able to pay should they go through the courts and enforce bankrupcy (seeing as once the money is paid down I won't be able to get it out again without selling).

Excuse my ignorance but I thought that if they demand payment and you have the assets to pay then you need to pay or they can enforce bankrupty (whether it's them or the courts is not the point).

[smalldog]

What happens for those of us that have the money needed to pay in a savings account?

We can't just "read them them Riot Act" and say we're not going to pay should we hit the end of the legal challenge.

One option would be to pay down the mortgage so that there isn't enough in bank accounts to meet the demand. But then it removes the option of being able to pay should they go through the courts and enforce bankrupcy (seeing as once the money is paid down I won't be able to get it out again without selling).

Excuse my ignorance but I thought that if they demand payment and you have the assets to pay then you need to pay or they can enforce bankrupty (whether it's them or the courts is not the point).

I have it in writing from an HMRC bod that in the circumstances where you cannot pay but have assets with equity that amount to the money owed they will take a second charge on property or the asset. I dont know timescales on how long that second charge can remain, for example they then give you say 12 months to sell the asset so they get paid....

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

What happens for those of us that have the money needed to pay in a savings account?

Excuse my ignorance but I thought that if they demand payment and you have the assets to pay then you need to pay or they can enforce bankrupty (whether it's them or the courts is not the point).

The point I was making was for those who cannot pay and don't have the equity in any assets. Clearly if you can pay then it's a different story. I'm not saying what is fair or not. It is just a fact that HMRC cannot make you bankrupt and the Court process is not just a simple nod from a Magistrate and factors do have to be taken into account. The process for a BO is very specific and the reason for posting was to remove concerns that HMRC can just stroll up, demand payment then take your house. They cannot. There is a legal process and there are conditions that a Court can apply (such as minors) when determining if / how and when to grant a BO application.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I have it in writing from an HMRC bod that in the circumstances where you cannot pay but have assets with equity that amount to the money owed they will take a second charge on property or the asset. I dont know timescales on how long that second charge can remain, for example they then give you say 12 months to sell the asset so they get paid....

This is an example where a Tomlin Order can be requested where a Court signs a legal "contract" that gives a Voluntary Charge from you to HMRC. But it also needs the consent of other Charges on the property. If they don't consent then a Court cannot apply a Charge automatically. But in most cases you'd still end up losing your asset one way or the other. A Tomlin Order can be granted for any period of time that is agreed by both Parties. A Court is simply signing the legality of such an agreement. Typically, a Tomlin Order is used to get a Voluntary Charge into the agreement for insurance purposes of those who are owed money. In most cases the Charge is simply that. You still have to actually make some payments.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

HMRC and Bankruptcy

Take a look at this.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/factsheets/ef5.pdf

I must say, the stuff at the end on HMRC is rather funny.

"If you are not satisfied with our service, please let the person dealing with your affairs
know what is wrong. We will work as quickly as possible to put things right and settle your complaint.
If you are still unhappy, ask for your complaint to be referred to the
Complaints Manager."
Me thinks there will be quite a few such complaints if things ever end up here...