BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DownButNotOut]

I wrote and got responses couple of weeks back, unfortunately all checks out...

got my responses back but unable to decipher them.

How do I know whether they check out or not?

Is it based on dates or wording?

[moira under the stairs]

I wrote and got responses couple of weeks back, unfortunately all checks out...

...ditto...

[funjim]

...ditto...

i got a nice bunch of letters back .. all checking out

[Morlock]

Did anyone write to HMRC and get a response of any kind ? I wrote about a particular year and have received nothing.

I've written 3 times and got absolutely nothing at all in reply. Shall be writing again this weekend and sending it recorded delivery. Next stop after that: the information commissioner...

P.S. I am keeping faith with Montpelier for now, and await their "Plan B" with interest.

P.P.S. If that fails, I am thinking of joining Al Qaeda and becoming a preacher of hatred; it might improve my chances of getting a favourable outcome from this country's screwed-up judicial system.

[orientalist]

P.S. I am keeping faith with Montpelier for now, and await their "Plan B" with interest.

P.P.S. If that fails, I am thinking of joining Al Qaeda and becoming a preacher of hatred; it might improve my chances of getting a favourable outcome from this country's screwed-up judicial system.

Vegas anyone?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

got my responses back but unable to decipher them.

How do I know whether they check out or not?

Is it based on dates or wording?

Each Closure Notice you received, for a given tax year, should have been preceded by a letter opening an enquiry in to that tax year. The date of the enquiry letter should be earlier than the date of the CN.

The wording of the letters varies quite a lot, and there doesn't seem to be any consistency. The majority refer to "section 9a TMA 1970" or "Code of Practice 8". Others are more vague.

You've probably only got a cast iron case for getting a CN withdrawn if there was no letter at all. If they sent you anything in writing prior to the CN (even scrawled on a bit of bog roll) they'll probably argue the toss.

Maybe the guy who had the invalid CN withdrawn was a one off but I would be surprised if that was HMRC's only mistake.

[TalkingCheese]

What about this ?

Each Closure Notice you received, for a given tax year, should have been preceded by a letter opening an enquiry in to that tax year. The date of the enquiry letter should be earlier than the date of the CN.

The wording of the letters varies quite a lot, and there doesn't seem to be any consistency. The majority refer to "section 9a TMA 1970" or "Code of Practice 8". Others are more vague.

You've probably only got a cast iron case for getting a CN withdrawn if there was no letter at all. If they sent you anything in writing prior to the CN (even scrawled on a bit of bog roll) they'll probably argue the toss.

Maybe the guy who had the invalid CN withdrawn was a one off but I would be surprised if that was HMRC's only mistake.

I have letters for most years that state "...I intend enquiring into this return...". However, for one year I only have, as part of a letter regarding general enquiries into my tax returns, "... If you have made a claim under the DTA for YYYY/YY+1 then you should now submit a revised assessment for that year..." and no formal opening of an enquiry. I may have lost the formal opening which is why I have written to them but could they argue that this constitutes notice into an enquiry for YYYY/YY+1?

[Toocan]

Where's my penalty?

The letter of the law says that you ARE doing something unlawful, because the letter of the law is s58 Finance Act 2008. Furthermore the letter of the law says you were always doing something unlawful, even when you might not have been.

That is true - and the Supreme Court has not changed that.

But that also means that we have submitted incorrect tax returns and we have failed to pay the tax by the bi-annual payment dates. As the law was clarified retrospectively, it has ALWAYS been clear how we should have reported the income.

If I had done that on any other matter over the last 10 years I would have a whole list of penalties to pay.

Why are there no penalty's?

HMRC are not supposed to have discretion over penalties. There are statutory defences but I doubt that includes “Time Machine”.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have letters for most years that state "...I intend enquiring into this return...". However, for one year I only have, as part of a letter regarding general enquiries into my tax returns, "... If you have made a claim under the DTA for YYYY/YY+1 then you should now submit a revised assessment for that year..." and no formal opening of an enquiry. I may have lost the formal opening which is why I have written to them but could they argue that this constitutes notice into an enquiry for YYYY/YY+1?

This is HMRC we are dealing with. They would argue black=white if it suited their purpose.

I think the best approach is to put the onus on them to provide proof that they opened an enquiry. If they cite this letter as the only evidence then it would be worth getting an expert opinion on it.

[ready_to_leave]

Now this has resolved itself and demonstrated finally the banana republic this country has become, I refer to my previous post:

"How many frankly laughable judgements will it take until one admits that the courts are part of the overall governmental protection racket and that justice is something people keep wanting to believe is true, but for which there is scant evidence (like honest politicians).

Politicians protect their own and government departments protect their own. You are either part of the state/corporate machine or you are one of the little people. We are not the in-group, we are the out group and we can be treated anyway they d**n well please. Look at the Parliamentary committee hearing for HMRC. It was obviously an incompetent and deceitful cover up and what really happened to anyone involved. NOTHING. A bit of a pantomime telling off from the grumpy headmistress. Accountability? Lets get real here.

Hartnett gets a massive payoff, a big pension and all the other civil servants get back to screwing the rest of the country, with nary a second thought.

You are a cash cow to be milked by the state and that is all that you need to know. Fines for mistakes, fines for not complying with rules that are never clear, ever growing regulations that even full time tax lawyers and accountants are unsure of (but you can be fined or prosecuted over), failure to see legislation as anything other than the will of the state, the state intermediating all your social interactions, time travel legislative powers. That is our present situation and the future holds a whole lot more of the same.

The court is not on your side. You do not appoint judges, nor enoble them, nor control inquiry appointments. Forget that avenue; it is going nowhere, as will appealing to any oversight committees or standards bodies. Its all a sham to make you think there is some restraint on their behaviour. A letter to Santa Claus would be more effective.

There is only one option and that is to write it off and be glad you got away with your liberty intact this time. I for one am off as soon as I can manage it, and HMRC and the govt will have no one to blame but themselves when there are no more productive individuals left to leech off. "

This is HMRC we are dealing with. They would argue black=white if it suited their purpose.

I think the best approach is to put the onus on them to provide proof that they opened an enquiry. If they cite this letter as the only evidence then it would be worth getting an expert opinion on it.