BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[GottaBeOptimistic]

Capital losses for this period

Hi all - still lurking and hoping for positive news.

I have a question for you ? Because our returns are still under investigation, does this mean that we can still amend our tax returns for these years? I have some capital losses that I have never declared and I would like to get these submitted but have gone past the 4 year cut off window.

Also, with all the recent stories with MTM, I assume the normal faces are still there, i.e NW, TW etc? Could somebody confirm for me, many thanks.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

Request for DR/All

Hi DR,

could I make a request ? There has been much discussion about what will happen immediately after the verdict is given including the possible timeline of activity if we don't get the verdict we hope for. Would it be worthwhile summarising these events using a link on the first page of this thread.

I often use this to get the latest information and and key status updates so thought this would be a good place to summarise the potential "next steps".

Any thoughts ?

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Hi all - still lurking and hoping for positive news.

I have a question for you ? Because our returns are still under investigation, does this mean that we can still amend our tax returns for these years? I have some capital losses that I have never declared and I would like to get these submitted but have gone past the 4 year cut off window.

Also, with all the recent stories with MTM, I assume the normal faces are still there, i.e NW, TW etc? Could somebody confirm for me, many thanks.

NW and TW dealt with my appeal last week , so, yes they are still around and doing stirling work
on our behalf. They had my appeal off to the scum within 24 hours of me faxing them the CN.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have a question for you ? Because our returns are still under investigation, does this mean that we can still amend our tax returns for these years? I have some capital losses that I have never declared and I would like to get these submitted but have gone past the 4 year cut off window. (1)

Also, with all the recent stories with MTM, I assume the normal faces are still there, i.e NW, TW etc? Could somebody confirm for me, many thanks. (2)

could I make a request ? There has been much discussion about what will happen immediately after the verdict is given including the possible timeline of activity if we don't get the verdict we hope for. Would it be worthwhile summarising these events using a link on the first page of this thread. (3)

Hi there. I'll answer what I can.

(1) I thought capital losses could only be used to offset capital gains not income? It's probably best to run this past Montpelier.

(2) Assuming you mean TQ (not TW) then yes they are both still there.

(3) Most of the discussion has been pure speculation. Montpelier and the PwC consortium have both stated that they intend to continue pursuing the legal challenge but until we get a judgment, and they have consulted their respective Counsels, we won't know what form this will take. I think it's better we wait and see rather than trying to second guess this.

Cheers
DR

[screwthis]

Hi all - still lurking and hoping for positive news.

I have a question for you ? Because our returns are still under investigation, does this mean that we can still amend our tax returns for these years? I have some capital losses that I have never declared and I would like to get these submitted but have gone past the 4 year cut off window.

Also, with all the recent stories with MTM, I assume the normal faces are still there, i.e NW, TW etc? Could somebody confirm for me, many thanks.

Is a good question.
If they want to retrospectively change how the money is taxed then we should also be able to go back and change our tax planning. i.e. Pensions.. So we should be able to put some of the income into a pension and reduce the tax and interest.
Argument being is the DTA rendered a pension pointless but if we were going to pay full tax we might well have put an amount into a pension to mitigate the tax.

[Emigre]

Is a good question.
If they want to retrospectively change how the money is taxed then we should also be able to go back and change our tax planning. i.e. Pensions.. So we should be able to put some of the income into a pension and reduce the tax and interest.
Argument being is the DTA rendered a pension pointless but if we were going to pay full tax we might well have put an amount into a pension to mitigate the tax.

I think you can change the return. However if there comes a day when we have to settle with HMRC then it is also a part of the bargain. HMRC has had all it their own way in the presentation of the CNs and the liabilities calculated there. It is their standpoint. Even if we were to lose there is nothing to absolutely confirm that the CNs are correct and certainly no flexibility to allow us to do things that any reasonable person would have done if they believed the sistuation to be as HMRC would have it.

Apart from the numpty errors of which there are bound to be many there is no certainty that what HMRC are claiming on our CNs would be legally correct if the Courts finally allow S58 to stand. How many people have actually reworked the calculations? You need a PhD to understand the presentation from Hector.

I would not expect to pay what is on the CN even if I had the money. At best/worst I would see it it as their starting point for a negotiation. My start point is zero, I did everything legally and told them all about it and they chose to do seet FA. They could havce claimed earlier if they felt they had a case. They didn't so they didn't so I won't. I think that will be my opening salvo...

There's a long long way to go. Collectively we can win and at the worst get the best deal available. Individually we will be greased up and...

[screwthis]

I think you can change the return. However if there comes a day when we have to settle with HMRC then it is also a part of the bargain. HMRC has had all it their own way in the presentation of the CNs and the liabilities calculated there. It is their standpoint. Even if we were to lose there is nothing to absolutely confirm that the CNs are correct and certainly no flexibility to allow us to do things that any reasonable person would have done if they believed the sistuation to be as HMRC would have it.

Apart from the numpty errors of which there are bound to be many there is no certainty that what HMRC are claiming on our CNs would be legally correct if the Courts finally allow S58 to stand. How many people have actually reworked the calculations? You need a PhD to understand the presentation from Hector.

I would not expect to pay what is on the CN even if I had the money. At best/worst I would see it it as their starting point for a negotiation. My start point is zero, I did everything legally and told them all about it and they chose to do seet FA. They could havce claimed earlier if they felt they had a case. They didn't so they didn't so I won't. I think that will be my opening salvo...

There's a long long way to go. Collectively we can win and at the worst get the best deal available. Individually we will be greased up and...

Excellent post.

I agree that we are stronger as a unit. I would hope there is vast room for negotiation, especially as my interest alone is 30-40K and counting.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

HMRC Tax Calculator

For what it's worth, I tried using this and it reckons I "owe" somewhat less than my CN. But, I do like this that is at the bottom of the calculator page:

"If you think you owe us money or the tax checker tells you you're not due a repayment and the calculation says you’ve underpaid it’s a matter for your conscience whether you do anything about it."

So there it is. Even if you did think you owed them money, they reckon it's a matter for your conscience only. Well, if I thought I didn't owe them anything, what matter would that rely on? Probably the stuff that makes up the Martian surface as that's about as out of this world HMRC are with this.

Oh, and if you read on, you'll find this:

"If things have gone wrong and you haven’t notified us about the problem, we do have the right to impose penalties if we discover you are underpaid at a later date."

Now can someone enlighten me? Things did go wrong. HMRC went wrong. Again and again and again. They cannot even get their grammer right, let alone the amount. God save us! Penalties if I'm underpaid? Whatever next?

[SantaClaus]

For what it's worth, I tried using this and it reckons I "owe" somewhat less than my CN. But, I do like this that is at the bottom of the calculator page:

"If you think you owe us money or the tax checker tells you you're not due a repayment and the calculation says you’ve underpaid it’s a matter for your conscience whether you do anything about it."

So there it is. Even if you did think you owed them money, they reckon it's a matter for your conscience only. Well, if I thought I didn't owe them anything, what matter would that rely on? Probably the stuff that makes up the Martian surface as that's about as out of this world HMRC are with this.

Oh, and if you read on, you'll find this:

"If things have gone wrong and you haven’t notified us about the problem, we do have the right to impose penalties if we discover you are underpaid at a later date."

Now can someone enlighten me? Things did go wrong. HMRC went wrong. Again and again and again. They cannot even get their grammer right, let alone the amount. God save us! Penalties if I'm underpaid? Whatever next?

"conscience and HMRC"? Now there's two words I've never seen mentioned together!

[Slobbo]

Had a thought whilst in the thinking room this morning



HMRC make it impossible to arrange your affairs in a legal manner when they simply change the rules retrospectively so that makes me think that if I was to have evaded tax instead avoided tax then I would be in a much better place because either a) they wouldn't know about it or b) they might know about it because they are in knowing receipt of stolen goods (and therefore breaking criminal law) so still in essence don't know about it or c) I could have fessed up (a couple of years ago) and obtained amnesty for the interest payments.

So I would have been better off by breaking the law.

Seems a bit backward to me and not exactly encouraging us to be law abiding citizens.

If we loose this then I will have lost faith in the legal system completely.