No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[phileds]

Question on the difference between "overpaying tax" and "making a payment on account".

About four years ago, after being informed that HMRC had opened an enquiry into my 2007/07 SA return, I cocked up my tax return and ended up overpaying by £2k. Having realised my mistake I immediately asked for a refund, only to be told that I couldn't have it ("You're being investigated, tough").

Would this overpayment have been used in subsequent years to offset tax owed? Or does it sit in a special account with HMRC, only to be released when they see fit (or when the courts finally decide our fate)?

The reason I ask - I simply cannot understand the statements that HMRC have sent me, and though I can see the £2k payment on the date it was paid in, I have no idea whether or not it was used against a subsequent tax payment. I also ended up slightly overpaying last year by £100, and that shows up as an overpayment on the HMRC website, one I can apparently claim back - this isn't the case for the £2k overpayment.

So - I guess my question is, if you're being investigated, what happens to an overpayment?

Any ideas?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Once an investigation has been opened any payments will be held on account until the investigation has been finished and a settlement agreed - have they confirmed with you whether they are continuing their investigations???

[BrilloPad]

Question on the difference between "overpaying tax" and "making a payment on account".

About four years ago, after being informed that HMRC had opened an enquiry into my 2007/07 SA return, I cocked up my tax return and ended up overpaying by £2k. Having realised my mistake I immediately asked for a refund, only to be told that I couldn't have it ("You're being investigated, tough").

Would this overpayment have been used in subsequent years to offset tax owed? Or does it sit in a special account with HMRC, only to be released when they see fit (or when the courts finally decide our fate)?

The reason I ask - I simply cannot understand the statements that HMRC have sent me, and though I can see the £2k payment on the date it was paid in, I have no idea whether or not it was used against a subsequent tax payment. I also ended up slightly overpaying last year by £100, and that shows up as an overpayment on the HMRC website, one I can apparently claim back - this isn't the case for the £2k overpayment.

So - I guess my question is, if you're being investigated, what happens to an overpayment?

Any ideas?

Technically it is correct that HMRC can hold onto the over payments in most circumstances - but not all. Have you contacted TQ or NW? They have had some success in getting these payments back. Its alot of work but in some cases it can be done.

[AlbionRovers]

Technically it is correct that HMRC can hold onto the over payments in most circumstances - but not all. Have you contacted TQ or NW? They have had some success in getting these payments back. Its alot of work but in some cases it can be done.

==

I contacted TQ/NW recently regarding a refund but don't expect a quick reply at this time of year. They're apparently a wee bit busy.

[BrilloPad]

==

I contacted TQ/NW recently regarding a refund but don't expect a quick reply at this time of year. They're apparently a wee bit busy.

+1

They usually get round to everything - but sometimes things do slip. Worth a chaser email early Feb when things are a bit quieter.

[freeranger]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No

ditto

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The truth about Padmore

Maurice Padmore won his case against the Inland Revenue (IR) in December 1986.

Over the next few months, there was various commentary on the court decision in the professional press.

In particular, an eminent tax barrister called Dr John Avery-Jones highlighted two variations on Padmore - CFCs and our arrangement Trusts. [Avery-Jones later went on to become a Special Commissioner who we would probably have faced in court, had the test cases ever got that far, given his specialist background in DTAs]

These variations were brought to the attention of counsel for the IR.

Despite this, the IR only recommended to the Government that they deal with the specific Padmore arrangement involving Partners. The Minister at the time, Norman Lamont, commented during the debate in July 1987 that they were aware that they were leaving loopholes which could be exploited but that was not their primary concern. The only priority was to prevent an estimated 15,000 partners making backdated claims for tax relief which could cost the Exchequer £100M. Nothing else.

The IR subsequently added a section on Padmore to their International Tax manual. In it, they noted that some tax advisors (ie. Avery-Jones) had suggested that Padmore could be extended in ways which were not covered by the 1987 legislation. They mentioned Trusts in particular. This was to be kept under review. If officers came across any claims for DTA relief they were to report them to the International Division.

Fast forward to 2008...

HMRC propose BN66 as a clarification of the 1987 legislation. They argued that it was, at the very least, implicit that Parliament intended the 1987 legislation to cover Trusts.

This was a deception. A total rewriting of history. A lie.

In 1987, Parliament (and the IR) knowingly left the loopholes, fully aware that they could be exploited. This is why the IR were supposed to keep the matter under review.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

And because of this there have already been suicides.

And no, I am not joking. I would never joke about something like this.

I am very serious. People have taken their own life because of BN66.

[moira under the stairs]

And because of this there have already been suicides.

And no, I am not joking. I would never joke about something like this.

I am very serious. People have taken their own life because of BN66.

DR, This is shocking .....

The Civil Servants that have lied and mislead must feel very proud of the honorable service they provide and the influence they have on other Human Beings and the preasure they inflict on British Citizans.

You only have to listen to the Thuggish HMRC Radio adverts to understand what this part of Civil Service has become.


'PROUD TO BE BRITISH' ...... not now.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Fast forward to 2008...

HMRC propose BN66 as a clarification of the 1987 legislation. They argued that it was, at the very least, implicit that Parliament intended the 1987 legislation to cover Trusts.

This was a deception. A total rewriting of history. A lie.

When viewed from a certain angle, couldn't that be regarded as an attempt (by HMRC) to influence a Court's decision in advance of a Court Hearing?

Maybe it's a facile observation, but I'd always thought that kind of thing was frowned upon. To say the least!

(And, in the context of DR's following post, its consequences have been utterly horrifying).