BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Ninja]

PR Company

Getting a PR company involved BEFORE SC ruling is sensible. When the sh1t hits the fan and some of us start loosing our homes and worse, we need our side of the story told. We may be many things but our tax affairs were transparent based on current laws. The liars are those civil servants and politicians who mislead Parliament to change laws retrospectively. Before that we had IR 35 and the war waged on consultants/entrepreneurs by those lifers who have never understood the nature of risk taking.

As to the amount of contribution, I suggest we leave it to individual circumstances. I can do much better than £10 but not as much as £1K. All I need to hit the transfer button is DR posting the account details.

I'm in favour of getting a good PR company on-side, provided that it doesn't clash with what MontP need to do.
In principle, I'm for it, but the detail needs to be thrashed out.

[bve534]

Retrospective pension payments

I think this has been raised previously and unfortunately only applies to those who had pension schemes throughout the period that the Treasury have made unlawful claims on scheme members.

As far as pension laws stand we probably dont have a chance even with the best legal advice. I did try this route as an individual only to be told that payment could only be made one year in arrears according to pension laws (of course that is how the law should be - no retrospectivity allowed). This raises the question if retrospective tax is permitted to persecute certain individuals who followed the tax law as it existed at the time then those same individuals should (in any democratic country) be allowed to retrospectively place their tax affairs in the position that is to their advantage from that same retrospective date. Yes I know they will laugh at that claim but we do live in a beacon to the world of democratic rights.

So far the scheme has ignored this option (and amusingly recommended I take this up with HMRC as an individual!!) but I for one would be more than willing to pay the scheme the percentage they are owed for success if they could obtain this dispensation. Given the pension payments allowances a became extremely large for 2-3 years (check the records if you dont believe me) then retrospective pension payments could offfset part/all of most tax bills and the Treasury would have to add their sum. The Govt could still claim they are treating tax "avoidvasion" (one slurrred word nowadays despite the facts of law) with a big stick while by allowing us to obtain the offsetting tax relief they maintain democratic principles and stay within the Rees doctrine.

The question I have is how many others in a similar position would be willing to pay the scheme their success percentage if they could offset the tax against pension payments. In addition it would give the scheme a valid profit motive for throughly reviewing this approach.

[BolshieBastard]

MP's committee declares HMRC apply double standards to big firms tax bills compared to lesser mortals!

Why double standards by HM Revenue and Customs mean you pay more - Telegraph

HM Revenue and Customs have failed to collect more than £25 billion in “unresolved tax bills” from major firms — the equivalent of £1,000 for every British family — a committee of MPs claims.

The revenue has recently sought to raise hundreds of millions of pounds in extra revenues by cracking down on tax avoidance by workers. Penalties for those submitting self-assessment tax forms late are being increased and professional workers are being aggressively targeted by tax inspectors.

Last year 1.4 million people were sent backdated tax demands totalling almost £4 billion after problems with the PAYE system.

Yet at the same time, the parliamentary public accounts committee says revenue executives have become “unduly cosy” with larger firms and have tried to hide from public scrutiny details of a series of secret deals with companies.

The disclosure that ordinary workers may suffer from a less forgiving tax regime than large corporations at a time of economic hardship will anger voters and embarrass the Coalition, which has pledged to raise billions of pounds more by clamping down on avoidance schemes.

Margaret Hodge, the former Labour minister who chairs the committee, said: “This report is a damning indictment of HMRC and the way its senior officials handle tax disputes with large corporations. We uncovered both specific and systemic failures which must be addressed.

“There is more than £25 billion outstanding in unresolved tax bills and it is essential there should be proper accountability to Parliament for the settlements reached.

“Parliament and the public have legitimate concerns that large companies are being treated more favourably than ordinary taxpayers.

“The department’s working practices must be seen by the taxpaying public to be absolutely impartial. The impression being given at the moment is quite the opposite, of far too cosy a relationship between HMRC and large companies.”

Richard Bacon, a Tory MP on the public accounts committee, said it appeared that the revenue took “a softer approach to powerful firms while being tougher on small businesses. “Whether accurate or not, this notion is toxic for HMRC’s relationship with the vast majority of taxpayers,” he said.

HMRC officials summoned to appear before the committee refused to give details of deals agreed with large firms, including Vodafone and Goldman Sachs. Instead the committee had to rely on allegations from a whistle-blower, the HMRC lawyer Osita Mba.

In some of the most damning comments made by MPs against serving public officials, concerns are raised that “many millions of pounds may be lost to the public purse”.

Mrs Hodge said: “It is extremely disappointing that senior HMRC officials were not prepared to co-operate with our inquiry.

“It is absurd that we had to rely on the media and the actions of a whistle-blower to find out about the details of individual settlements.”

The committee also criticises governance arrangements at the revenue with the same officials responsible for negotiating and approving deals with major companies.

The report warns that the revenue may be ill-equipped to deal with changes to child benefit which will strip millions of higher-rate taxpayers of the perk from next year.

The changes to child benefit, announced by George Osborne last year, will be administered by HMRC from 2013 but could lead to families’ financial affairs being mishandled.

HMRC executives are likely to come under intense pressure after publication of the reports.

The National Audit Office has now appointed a former judge to investigate the allegations. Dave Hartnett recently announced he will retire as HMRC Permanent Secretary for Tax in the summer, after admitting an error led him to sign off on a tax avoidance dispute. Goldman Sachs, the investment bank, did not have to pay a multi-million pound interest bill on unpaid tax on bonuses after Mr Hartnett was wrongly advised there was a “legal impediment” to collecting it.

The potential cost to the taxpayer is officially put at £8 million but Mr Mba said the sum could be up to £20 million.

MPs also suspect that the revenue struck a “sweetheart” deal with Vodafone, saving the mobile phone company billions of pounds in tax.

Noting that Mr Hartnett alone had enjoyed 107 dinners and lunches with companies, tax lawyers and advisers over two years, the MPs raised concerns that relations could seem “unduly cosy”.

HMRC rejected the committee’s conclusions. “The report is based on partial information, inaccurate opinion and some misunderstanding of facts,” a spokesman said.

“Senior HMRC officials sought to be co-operative by providing as much information as possible within the legal constraints of taxpayer confidentiality.”

David Gauke, a Treasury minister, said the Government had “full confidence” in HMRC.

Two faced c**t

[TaxDude]

Pension payments

I think this has been raised previously and unfortunately only applies to those who had pension schemes throughout the period that the Treasury have made unlawful claims on scheme members.

As far as pension laws stand we probably dont have a chance even with the best legal advice. I did try this route as an individual only to be told that payment could only be made one year in arrears according to pension laws (of course that is how the law should be - no retrospectivity allowed). This raises the question if retrospective tax is permitted to persecute certain individuals who followed the tax law as it existed at the time then those same individuals should (in any democratic country) be allowed to retrospectively place their tax affairs in the position that is to their advantage from that same retrospective date. Yes I know they will laugh at that claim but we do live in a beacon to the world of democratic rights.

So far the scheme has ignored this option (and amusingly recommended I take this up with HMRC as an individual!!) but I for one would be more than willing to pay the scheme the percentage they are owed for success if they could obtain this dispensation. Given the pension payments allowances a became extremely large for 2-3 years (check the records if you dont believe me) then retrospective pension payments could offfset part/all of most tax bills and the Treasury would have to add their sum. The Govt could still claim they are treating tax "avoidvasion" (one slurrred word nowadays despite the facts of law) with a big stick while by allowing us to obtain the offsetting tax relief they maintain democratic principles and stay within the Rees doctrine.

The question I have is how many others in a similar position would be willing to pay the scheme their success percentage if they could offset the tax against pension payments. In addition it would give the scheme a valid profit motive for throughly reviewing this approach.

If it was possible - this would be something that would work for me

[MrX]

Closure Notice On The Way...

I've just logged on this morning to find that in the last week I "owe" the tax man about £40K. It seems a closure notice for 2008 is in the post. I thought HMRC were going to hold off on these until the court cases were decided? Anyway, I've not contacted MP for a while now so can I ask who is the best person to contact when this closure notice turns up on my doorstep? Ta.

[centurian]

I see Hartnett is certainly get a pasting in front of MPs

BBC News - HMRC criticised for 'cosy' deals by committee of MPs

I wouldn't get too excited over all this though. The conclusion of this won't be to ease the pressure on the little guys, but rather to increase pressure on the big boys. The backlash from this seems to be a harder crackdown on tax avoidance at all levels, not easing up the pressure on the levels which have had the most focus.

[BrilloPad]

I've just logged on this morning to find that in the last week I "owe" the tax man about £40K. It seems a closure notice for 2008 is in the post. I thought HMRC were going to hold off on these until the court cases were decided? Anyway, I've not contacted MP for a while now so can I ask who is the best person to contact when this closure notice turns up on my doorstep? Ta.

The closure notices are being issued - but will not be taken further if appealed. MP will appeal for you once they know. I suggest sending them a copy of CN by post and emailing - give them a call and ask for the best email address (probably TQ).

Even after appeal you will still get paperwork through - just ignore it. The muppets at HMRC are to busy being wined and dined by large corporates to get their systems together.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

"HMRC officials summoned to appear before the committee refused to give details of deals agreed with large firms, including Vodafone and Goldman Sachs. Instead the committee had to rely on allegations from a whistle-blower, the HMRC lawyer Osita Mba."

So who exactly are HMR&C accountable to

[BrilloPad]

"HMRC officials summoned to appear before the committee refused to give details of deals agreed with large firms, including Vodafone and Goldman Sachs. Instead the committee had to rely on allegations from a whistle-blower, the HMRC lawyer Osita Mba."

So who exactly are HMR&C accountable to

Its a very good question and the same can be said of social services. They do not answer to parliament and cannot be sued.

Maybe the person who is known as Alan Brannigan would like to comment? Though I doubt he has the bottle being a spineless bully boy.

[bve534]

retrospective pension payments option - a show of hands

If it was possible - this would be something that would work for me

Can we see if there is any interest in the scheme trying to negotiate retrospective pension payments (apologies to those who didnt have a pension) with comments on the blog. In the event of success how many would be willing to pay the scheme their percentage for success. Two people (myself and Taxdude) would be willing to pay in the event of success but perhaps we are the only people with qualifying pensions, although I recollect this was the subject of a previous thread? If there is no financial incentive for the scheme to seriously look at this option then it wont happen. If we try approaching the Revenue (as I did) as individuals they will simply quote "pension laws cannot be retrospectively changed" (just the low blow to be expected) and have a good laugh at our expense. The request for retrospective pension payments in a "democracy" to balance part of the debt would also provide ammunition for a PR team. A drowning man clutches at straws.