BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[GBHuhd]

Yes, I think there is a case to say that Discovery is not appropriate, since there was no new information to discover (we disclosed it all on the form). Hence if the ordinary enquiry time window was closed when they issued the enquiry notice, then they have missed the boat and the enquiry notice is invalid.

So following on, if the enquiry notice is invalid - does this help us in any way at all - or can they just issue new enquires ? I personally got enquiry notice well past the due date

[TalkingCheese]

So following on, if the enquiry notice is invalid - does this help us in any way at all - or can they just issue new enquires ? I personally got enquiry notice well past the due date

I think it helps you :-). Most of our enquiries were issued on time so we have to rely on someone who matters to realise the ludicracy of this situation and have the inclination to do something about it:-(

[GBHuhd]

I think it helps you :-). Most of our enquiries were issued on time so we have to rely on someone who matters to realise the ludicracy of this situation and have the inclination to do something about it:-(

Interesting...not sure what i could actually do with it if anything, since we know they can change the rules as they like, i didn't get the enquiry notice for 04/05 until 2007 despsite that year already being in their own records as cleared at end of 2005 (got from FOI act). They were quick to open enquiries into other years...even ones i had no income in..

[Slobbo]

If you want to know where HMRC will be spending our money once they have robbed us, here's a good example:

'Suspend back to work tsar': MPs demand action over fraud probe into job placement scheme | Mail Online

"Emma Harrison's firm A4e is accused of receiving fees from the taxpayer after finding people jobs lasting just 24 hours.... She awarded herself £8.6million of mainly taxpayers' cash this month"

Probably something there but the sort of people they will be placing are the ones that are professional benefits cheats. They are told either go do this or you will lose the benefit. So they will go for a day. Say it isn't for them and go back on benefits. Should A4e not get paid because the benefit cheat can't be bothered turning up. The mail will be sensationalising the 1 day thing rather than reporting the full story. They haven't told you what number of people went to work and stayed in work. It may very well be a success story.

[Morlock]

Interesting...not sure what i could actually do with it if anything, since we know they can change the rules as they like, i didn't get the enquiry notice for 04/05 until 2007 despsite that year already being in their own records as cleared at end of 2005 (got from FOI act). They were quick to open enquiries into other years...even ones i had no income in..

You could take it to a tax tribunal. The tribunes would rule on whether it was appropriate for HMRC to use the discovery rules in your case.

[SantaClaus]

Probably something there but the sort of people they will be placing are the ones that are professional benefits cheats. They are told either go do this or you will lose the benefit. So they will go for a day. Say it isn't for them and go back on benefits. Should A4e not get paid because the benefit cheat can't be bothered turning up. The mail will be sensationalising the 1 day thing rather than reporting the full story. They haven't told you what number of people went to work and stayed in work. It may very well be a success story.

I'm talking more about a government minister paying herself an £8M salary, unless I have read it wrong.

[Ganimos]

But we disclosed everything at the correct time, DOTAS number included, so we dont fall into that category I believe.

They have changed the goal posts get again.......
They now have .....

4 years (not one)

"In any case of incomplete disclosure without careless or deliberate conduct the time limit for a discovery assessment is not later than 4 years after the end of the tax year to which it relates"

6 years

"In any case involving a loss of tax brought about carelessly, the time limit for making a discovery assessment is not later than 6 years after the end of tax year to which the assessment relates."

and 20 years
"The time limit for making a discovery assessment is not later than 20 years after the end of the tax year to which it relates where the loss of tax is
[I]
brought about deliberately by the person
attributable to a failure to notify liability under Section 7, or
attributable to a tax avoidance scheme which is a notifiable arrangement or a listed or hallmarked scheme and the user of the scheme failed to disclose details to HMRC at the proper time."


Given that the tax is now legally due,they can claim it was ALWAYS due (that,s the clarification bit in the legislaion) they can claim.

1.brought about deliberately by the person.we acted deliberately because they lost tax.

2. We acted carelessly (they can go back 6 years)

DOTAS I believe only applied from 2005 What about the years before?

What is a listed or hallmarked scheme ? Was ours 'listed or hallmarked'

These changes to allow them greater time scales to challenge things have only come about recently since the Court cases.

If any of the current 'discovery' assessments are judged to be incorrect / out of time etc whats to stop them raising new discovery assessments at any time in the 20 years following the tax return and claiming the tax was always due, it just needed clarification, and we acted deliberately notwithstanding any information we gave them ?

It feels like retrospective time scales to challenge things to me.

Hope I am wrong. Be nice to hear what MP has to say.

Any comments anybody ???

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If any of the current 'discovery' assessments are judged to be incorrect / out of time etc whats to stop them raising new discovery assessments at any time in the 20 years following the tax return and claiming the tax was always due, it just needed clarification, and we acted deliberately notwithstanding any information we gave them ?

The thing that may stop them is that they have already issued Closure Notices. Montpelier cited different grounds of appeal for these CNs, challenging the use of discovery.

Also, remember one guy has already had a CN withdrawn because there was no prior enquiry. I'm sure they would have slapped him with a discovery assessment if they could have done.

[jeanvaljean]

Changing the law

Thursday 22nd May 2008
Two amendments tabled by Conservatives
Conservative MPs also table two amendments, stating the wish to "leave out 'are treated as always having had effect' and insert 'shall have effect from 6th April 2008'" in order to remove the retrospective element.


If these Members of Parliament who tabled these amendments were sympathetic to our plight when it was hypothetical, could they not be approached now? (Depending, of course, on what the letter from MP says.)

[nick4notax]

Thursday 22nd May 2008
Two amendments tabled by Conservatives
Conservative MPs also table two amendments, stating the wish to "leave out 'are treated as always having had effect' and insert 'shall have effect from 6th April 2008'" in order to remove the retrospective element.


If these Members of Parliament who tabled these amendments were sympathetic to our plight when it was hypothetical, could they not be approached now? (Depending, of course, on what the letter from MP says.)

I've already written to my supposedly once sympathetic MP on this very issue, citing their opposition to S58's retrospectivity aspect. Wouldn't hurt if we all sent a new email to them (writetothem.com)