BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Dieselpower]

The first time I was told that 'Hmrc does not accept that the claims are valid' was May 2007. This was also when they first asked me to consider 'making a payment on account'.

Previous to that, from 2006 (for 2004/5 return) they 'intend enquiring into this return'.

To say they had always rejected the scheme is simply not true.

Anyone else got similar dates?

yes my dates identical. They couldn't have told us that our scheme "didnt work" given TN63 in 2002 which said the opposite. And they wouldnt have gone to the trouble of pressing the Nuclear Retro button in 2007/8 if they genuinely believed that our scheme was always illegitimate. Even now they are telling Gauke something that is untrue, and that bothers me immensely, because its so unfair.

[foolishboy]

The first time I was told that 'Hmrc does not accept that the claims are valid' was May 2007. This was also when they first asked me to consider 'making a payment on account'.

Previous to that, from 2006 (for 2004/5 return) they 'intend enquiring into this return'.

To say they had always rejected the scheme is simply not true.

Anyone else got similar dates?

In fact in 2006 they say 'Each year we enquire into some tax returns to check that they are right or because we need further information to understand the figures. We want to make sure you pay the right tax, not too little or too much...' doesn't sound like non-acceptance to me!

Yeah my "enquiry" dates go back to January 2005 (for 2003-2004) but no mention of rejecting the scheme on any grounds until May 2007 when they suggest payments on account. So no mention of non-acceptance for more than 3 years!

[OldITGit]

My Communications were as you said

yes my dates identical. They couldn't have told us that our scheme "didnt work" given TN63 in 2002 which said the opposite. And they wouldnt have gone to the trouble of pressing the Nuclear Retro button in 2007/8 if they genuinely believed that our scheme was always illegitimate. Even now they are telling Gauke something that is untrue, and that bothers me immensely, because its so unfair.

I will re-trawl thru IR/HMRC communications tomorrow, but what has been said and the dates match my recollection (no pun intended!!!). I will report back on Wednesday with full details

[foolishboy]

Meeting arranged with MP

Am meeting my MP Jeremy Hunt on friday 27th April. Will report back with an update.

[Buzby]

meeting with MP

Am meeting my MP Jeremy Hunt on friday 27th April. Will report back with an update.

foolishboy, I would expect your MP will write to DG and you will then get a reply similar to this:

I got a reply to my letter from Gauke’s office…..

It’s full of the usual flannel:
“HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made”
...

it might therefore be worth you showing your communication from HMRC, assuming its similar to everyone else then the above clearly isn't true. If we can get DG to see that HMRC have been misleading him on one aspect, he might start looking into other ways HMRC have misled parliament.

[moira under the stairs]

foolishboy, I would expect your MP will write to DG and you will then get a reply similar to this:




it might therefore be worth you showing your communication from HMRC, assuming its similar to everyone else then the above clearly isn't true. If we can get DG to see that HMRC have been misleading him on one aspect, he might start looking into other ways HMRC have misled parliament.

Something my Dear Mum taught me... never spin a web of lies, you will never remember what you have said and the truth will always emerge !!!!

and....... A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

[OldITGit]

Breakdown of HMRC Communications

22nd Jun 2006- SA Statement, balancing payment 2004/2005 and on A/C 2005/2006
24th Aug 2006- Advice of underpayment and interest due
15th Sep 2006- Advice of SA amount unpaid
10th Oct 2006- HMRC will enquire into tax return 2004/2005, no action required
25th June 2007- SA statement, advice of 2nd payment on account
19th Mar 2008- Letter Special Investigations about including DTA on year 2007/2008
22nd Jul 2008- HMRC advise BN66 law and asked to resubmit revised SA for 2006/2007
5th Nov 2008- HMRC demand IOM accounts from beneficiaries of trust to issue closure notices and advise 2006/2007 enquiry and 2007/2008 enquiry being opened
21st Nov 2008- HMRC query on Mamyki Partnership for years 2003/2008 (closure notices)
4th Dec 2008- Local compliance wrote HMRC enquiring into tax return 2006/2007
8th Dec 2008- HMRC Closure Notice letter received
11th Dec 2008- HMRC provide details of total owing (in excess of £150k)
19th Dec 2008- HMRC acknowledge appeals
22nd Dec 2008- Letter HMRC provide amended SA figure for year 2003/2004
24th Dec 2008- Letter HMRC appeal 2006/2007 accepted
14th Apr 2009- Letter HMRC advising enquiry into tax return
19th Dec 2009- SA Statement from HMRC with breakdown of all years amounts

Weblink provided by DR (Freelance Magazine), HMRC stated that S58 is not retrospective, that it came to light in 2004 and is a clarification

[Fireship]

The first time I was told that 'Hmrc does not accept that the claims are valid' was May 2007. This was also when they first asked me to consider 'making a payment on account'.

Previous to that, from 2006 (for 2004/5 return) they 'intend enquiring into this return'.

To say they had always rejected the scheme is simply not true.

Anyone else got similar dates?

In fact in 2006 they say 'Each year we enquire into some tax returns to check that they are right or because we need further information to understand the figures. We want to make sure you pay the right tax, not too little or too much...' doesn't sound like non-acceptance to me!

I need to check my IR/HMRC comms but I believe the same is true for the comms I received, and no doubt all of us for that matter.

Being told IR/HMRC is opening an enquiry and no further action is required is VERY different and contradicts the argument that they maintained throughout that the scheme did not work!!

[screwthis]

I need to check my IR/HMRC comms but I believe the same is true for the comms I received, and no doubt all of us for that matter.

Being told IR/HMRC is opening an enquiry and no further action is required is VERY different and contradicts the argument that they maintained throughout that the scheme did not work!!

So anyone who has received the Gauke letter should write back with the above comms breakdown??

[Disgusted of Coventry]

The first time I was told that 'Hmrc does not accept that the claims are valid' was May 2007. This was also when they first asked me to consider 'making a payment on account'.

Previous to that, from 2006 (for 2004/5 return) they 'intend enquiring into this return'.

To say they had always rejected the scheme is simply not true.

Anyone else got similar dates?

In fact in 2006 they say 'Each year we enquire into some tax returns to check that they are right or because we need further information to understand the figures. We want to make sure you pay the right tax, not too little or too much...' doesn't sound like non-acceptance to me!

So what, then, was the provenance of this extraordinary piece of fiction?

"At no time did HMRC indicate to affected taxpayers, including the claimant, that they could safely rely upon the arrangements. On the contrary HMRC consistently maintained that the arrangements did not work, and advised taxpayers to pay on account the income tax which HMRC said was properly due. Any prudent taxpayer who followed that advice would not now be prejudiced by the retrospective effect of the legislation."
J. Parker.