BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[TalkingCheese]

In every single letter of response, HMRC/Gauke is saying "HMRC made it clear throughout that the scheme didnt work"

This is complete crap and we need to deal with the point immediately and include it in all letters to MPs etc, so that MP's realise that the future response from Gauke (to their letters following a surgery meeting) is already flawed and false.

As can be seen from the forum posts lately (pages 329 onwards), and also in my particular case (and hence I presume in every single case), the very first time HMRC stated that they "did not accept the validity of the scheme" was in May 2007, and in that same letter they said that because they don't accept its validity they intend taking representative cases to the Tax Courts. Bear in mind their first letter of enquiry to me was some 2 yrs earlier (an in many other peoples cases, even earlier than that). Bear in mind also that by way of TN63 they must have known about the scheme in 2002!

Post 2008 they didnt NEED to tell us the scheme didnt work because Section58's retroaction made that obvious to all parties.

So in brief, they only told us on ONE occasion that in their view the scheme was not valid, but in the same breath they said "so we are taking this to the tax courts", something that they simply never followed through with (because they knew that they would lose)

Hence the notion that they "made it clear throughout " is quite frankly an utter lie, designed to appease and mislead MP's into keeping their mouths shut.

I urge everyone who has already written to their MP to follow up with this point. Its easy to prove - we all have a dossier of comms from HMRC, and certainly in my case there is one sole reference to the fact that the scheme didnt work/was invalid. One sole reference does not equal "Throughout"

Also worth including in the comms the previous years letter that states "We want to make sure you pay the right tax, not too little or too much..." making it clear that they did not reject the scheme prior to 2007, they were merely enquiring.

In every single letter of response, HMRC/Gauke is saying ...

Osborne too.

[BarneyCool]

Full of 5hite!

Originally Posted by Dieselpower
In every single letter of response, HMRC/Gauke is saying ...

And what exactly does Gauke say about all of the Bull that he spouted in 2008?
was he lying then?
or is he lying now?

Simple questions do they get answered?

[TalkingCheese]

Originally Posted by Dieselpower
In every single letter of response, HMRC/Gauke is saying ...

And what exactly does Gauke say about all of the Bull that he spouted in 2008?
was he lying then?
or is he lying now?

Simple questions do they get answered?

I take it no one has been to see Gauke as their MP ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Have I got a case for asking HMRC to withdraw the corresponding Closure Notices and remove the adjustments from my returns.for tax years ending 05 06 and 08?

You could try but I doubt they will concede. I don't know what constitutes a valid "enquiry" but I'm sure they will argue that it is sufficient even if they just mention it in passing.

Only 2 people that I know of have had a CN withdrawn and that was in the very specific circumstances where HMRC had made no mention whatsoever of enquiring into the given tax years.

[Buzby]

DG comments from 2008

Originally Posted by Dieselpower
In every single letter of response, HMRC/Gauke is saying ...

And what exactly does Gauke say about all of the Bull that he spouted in 2008?
was he lying then?
or is he lying now?

Simple questions do they get answered?

I know its been quoted before, but here is an extract from the 2008 debate

Mr. Gauke: I do not think that the Minister has reassured Conservative Members at all. There is an essential contradiction in what she said. She said that HMRC is confident that the clause merely reasserts existing law, that it is not a change in law and that the schemes are in clear breach of the law, yet she suggests that some £200 million in back tax is at risk. If the law is as she says—I have no reason to doubt it—that sum is not at risk, because all that is required is for HMRC to litigate. It prompts the question why HMRC will not litigate. Why is it not prepared to take the matter to court?
It relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. The Government are saying, essentially, that they will pass new law if they think that the law is in some way flawed or there is an alternative interpretation of it that they do not like. Rather than allowing the courts to interpret that law, they will rewrite it retrospectively so that it says what they wanted it to say in the first place. Such an approach gives individuals and businesses no reassurance that the law is what they think it is, as it is written down and what has been passed by Parliament. The impression is that it is
something that can be changed if not at a whim, at the discretion of the Government retrospectively.

I wonder how DG can explain why he can accept this now?

Full text available here : House of Commons General Committee

[nevergiveup]

I know its been quoted before, but here is an extract from the 2008 debate


I wonder how DG can explain why he can accept this now?

Full text available here : House of Commons General Committee

All good stuff to take along to our MP meetings :-)

[BarneyCool]

All good stuff to take along to our MP meetings :-)

Unfortunately MP's entire careers are built on Avoidance and Lies.

Lying when in opposition
and
Avoiding the question when in Power

I doubt any of them truly give a tulip even when caught with their pants down as Gauke has been.

[Morlock]

I have now received copies of letters informing me HMRC intended enquiring into my returns.

The letters for tax years ending 03 and 04 were both headed Section 9A TMA 1970 Notice.

For tax year ending 07 does mention Section 9A Taxes Management Act 1970.

BUT for tax years ending 05 06 and 08 there is no mention of Section 9A TMA 1970 Notice. They do say "I intend to enquire into this return" and the letter for 08 also states "I note you claimed relief again for 2007-08 . As such, this year will be included as part of HM Revenue & Custom's overall enquiry under this notice"

Have I got a case for asking HMRC to withdraw the corresponding Closure Notices and remove the adjustments from my returns.for tax years ending 05 06 and 08?

I have previously been informed by an ex-HMRC Tax Inspector of 20 years standing that there is no prescribed forms of words which have to be used when warning a taxpayer about an enquiry; plain English is sufficient. On that basis I would say you probably don't have much of a case. Still might be worth a shot though...

[Goinroamin]

MP Letters

I am still awaiting a formal response from my MP but I am in touch with one of his staff.

Latest update this morning was that investigations they have made so far have not answered many of my question put in my original letter, and therefore my MP was seeking a response from the Minister (DG) himself.

Anticipating the same response I have primed them with some answers and facts as suggested in previous posts. Lets see if that gets a different response.

[TalkingCheese]

Tax tribunals

Regardless of the lies (at worst), chinese whispers(at best) going on re: consistent rejection of the scheme by Hmrc, I hope and believe the tax tribunals cannot ignore it taking at least 5 years of knowing about the scheme to determine they rejected it... and even then they didn't know why!