BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

wasn't there a case of a few closure notices dismissed because the correct procedure hadn't been followed? how do we check to see if our own notices were issued correctly? interestingly I only recall seeing notices for 3 out of the 5 years my online tax account states I owe...

Only one closure notice that I know of.

The circumstances were very specific. HMRC issued a CN without first opening an enquiry into the tax return.

However I would be very surprised if this is the only error HMRC have made.

DR - given you seem to have the most reliable contact with MP do you know if they are actually doing anything? Or do we assume the worst - we're on our own and at the mercy of HMRC?

I don't know exactly what they are doing. I've only heard tiny snippets eg. that MP's solicitor is in talks with PwC and KPMG.

I've heard nothing that would suggest we're being thrown to the wind.

[moira under the stairs]

Only one closure notice that I know of.

The circumstances were very specific. HMRC issued a CN without first opening an enquiry into the tax return.

However I would be very surprised if this is the only error HMRC have made.



I don't know exactly what they are doing. I've only heard tiny snippets eg. that MP's solicitor is in talks with PwC and KPMG.

I've heard nothing that would suggest we're being thrown to the wind.

Its only the trolls on this forum that want you to feel that way.... its not difficult to spot them...

[sjw]

Only one closure notice that I know of.

The circumstances were very specific. HMRC issued a CN without first opening an enquiry into the tax return.

However I would be very surprised if this is the only error HMRC have made.



I don't know exactly what they are doing. I've only heard tiny snippets eg. that MP's solicitor is in talks with PwC and KPMG.

I've heard nothing that would suggest we're being thrown to the wind.

so presumably they cancel the original notice and open a new enquiry.....never mind as you say it was very specific and it's really grasping at straws..

I do hope you are right - but I wouldn't be surprised if we are being thrown to the wind. Then I'd be happy to pay for a PR campaign - but it's subject matter won't be HMRC...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

as other posters have noted.. ive never seen the appeals..
your right. I must stick with MP mustnt I... after all they've got a great track record on this so far..
1. they picked the wrong fight.. 2. they shut down bloody company which was my only chance of recovering fees already paid.. 3. the deafening silence.. yeah MP sure are the guys to take care of it...

You don't have to stick with MP but, unless you have got very deep pockets, you'd get slaughtered if you took on HMRC as an individual.

Take the discovery argument for example. HMRC will defend these powers to the hilt. Whether you win or lose in round 1, you'd need to be prepared to fight further appeals.

Btw, I totally disagree that MP picked the wrong fight. The European angle was the only fight available, which is why PwC and Steed/KPMG ploughed the same furrow.

Once a law is passed by Parliament there is very little you can do about it... unless it conflicts with Europe.

[p4nd4b34r]

You don't have to stick with MP but, unless you have got very deep pockets, you'd get slaughtered if you took on HMRC as an individual.

Take the discovery argument for example. HMRC will defend these powers to the hilt. Whether you win or lose in round 1, you'd need to be prepared to fight further appeals.

Btw, I totally disagree that MP picked the wrong fight. The European angle was the only fight available, which is why PwC and Steed/KPMG ploughed the same furrow.

Once a law is passed by Parliament there is very little you can do about it... unless it conflicts with Europe.

guess your right, just very bitter... but grateful i'm not in a worse situation as I left the scheme after 2 years. I had high hopes of having one closure notice cancelled on discovery grounds..looks like even that hope is in vain from what you say

[DonkeyRhubarb]

guess your right, just very bitter... but grateful i'm not in a worse situation as I left the scheme after 2 years. I had high hopes of having one closure notice cancelled on discovery grounds..looks like even that hope is in vain from what you say

Not in vain but far from guaranteed.

Personally I don't blame MP but I understand those who do.

This is a sh!tty situation and people have every right to be angry and bitter.

[stuffed]

Damage Limitation?

Obviouslly I am grateful for MP and the fight they are taking on our behalf, but I also expect that they are fighting just for the all out win.

Is it also time to consider other angles and whether we try and reach one of the following scenarios.
Maybe parliament / HMRC / Gauke would be more applicable to a compromise.

The way I see it, there is 3 justifiable angles which we have decent grounds to complain about, and ask to be considered.

1) The interest penalties on Tax that was introduced retrospectively wiped out.

2) The same deal Suo Moto got

3) The ability to restucture our tax affairs based on us being Self Employed

If we were offered 1 & 3 or 1 & 2 I would accept this and move on??

Is it also time for asking Gauke to maybe consider this angle.
That way we are seen as still paying tax. The retrospective angle is in effect watered down, and I see it right now as a bit of a win/win situation for both us and Govt/HMRC.

MP would lose out though, and there is also the possibility that this would compromise the fight that MP are taking on our behalf.
I guess if MP agreed to fight for those sort of settlements in the end then that may suffice, but at that point it might be all too late and the revenue have no need or care for compromise and concessions?

Thoughts

[bve534]

Treasury guidelines on retrospective taxation

[QUOTE=reckless;1502619]When writing letters to MPs etc. don't forget to mention that Section 58 is actually at odds with HMRC's own document which deals with the announcement of tax changes;

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011bu...xavoidance.pdf

This was a cracker and the final insult although I dont think it is worth the paper it is written on (and I bet David Gauke,George Osborne and Ed Balls think likewise). These are guidelines and Huitson is legal precedent. It was rushed out when it suddenly dawned on these dimwits that retrospective taxation wasnt necessarily such wonderful news for the UK economy and carried potential ramifications to UK plc (doh!). The recent retrospective taxation of Barclays plus the Gaines-Walker case and of course not forgetting dear old S.58 tells a completely different story altogether. It appears to any sane person that HMRC/Treasury think retrospective taxation is a wonderful weapon in their armoury whenever they want to "discover" via their time machine and then "re-interpret" the tax laws. Gauke and co are quite happy to let us hang out to dry while at the very same time writing this drivel which unfortunately proves its worth. New Slavery may have pushed through s.58 but Gauke and co obviously support it. This is almost worse because gauke was so strongly opposed to S.58 while in Opposition.

[ir35amnesia]

Negotiate

The way I see it, there is 3 justifiable angles which we have decent grounds to complain about, and ask to be considered.
1) The interest penalties on Tax that was introduced retrospectively wiped out.
2) The same deal Suo Moto got
3) The ability to restucture our tax affairs based on us being Self Employed
That way we are seen as still paying tax. The retrospective angle is in effect watered down, and I see it right now as a bit of a win/win situation for both us and Govt/HMRC.
MP would lose out though, and there is also the possibility that this would compromise the fight that MP are taking on our behalf.
I guess if MP agreed to fight for those sort of settlements in the end then that may suffice, but at that point it might be all too late and the revenue have no need or care for compromise and concessions?
Thoughts

I agree that there maybe - albeit small - an opportunity to agree a deal that is win/win for everyone. I dont know the deal you have with Montp re the success fee so i dont know how willing they would be to step in. AND I am not convinced that HMRC/treasury etc would welcome any of the scheme providers to a negotiating table.
PLUS there is something else.
It may NOT be the holy grail BUT it may be enough (when added to things listed by "Stuffed") to get a seat at the negotiating table.
SEE BN66.CO.UK

[p4nd4b34r]

I agree that there maybe - albeit small - an opportunity to agree a deal that is win/win for everyone. I dont know the deal you have with Montp re the success fee so i dont know how willing they would be to step in. AND I am not convinced that HMRC/treasury etc would welcome any of the scheme providers to a negotiating table.
PLUS there is something else.
It may NOT be the holy grail BUT it may be enough (when added to things listed by "Stuffed") to get a seat at the negotiating table.
SEE BN66.CO.UK

Ive had a read and it worries me somewhat, despite it stating ir35 isnt relevant it strikes me that it is an admission of your status as employee for those prior years and may be an invitation for hmrc to investigate the current status of anyone who take its up, and this may negate any insurance policies currently taken.