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

[TalkingCheese]

DV Clearance and this mess

Does anyone have experience of how DV clearance is affected by someone in this situation ?

I have a colleague who used a very similar arrangement with enquiries open who is going for a contract that requires DV clearance. I believe HMRC have opened his under discovery. One question on the DV form is around investigations by HMRC in the last 10 years and to provide details.

Anyone know how this would affect his application ?

It would be useful for all of us to know of any experience that anyone has in case anyone else on this forum are also looking into a contract that requires DV clearance.

[lucozade]

I went through DV 2 years ago and was up front about the whole thing. I still got it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Montpelier know of several clients who've gone through DV and none have experienced any problems.

[SleepingFireman]

I know of a number of people who have DV and this was not an issue. However all of them fully declared the situation.

[TalkingCheese]

DV Clearance

Thanks all for the feedback.

[swede]

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

NI Number:

Date

Dear Sir,

I am writing, under the Data Protection Act, to request copies of all correspondence HMRC have sent me since 2002.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Yours faithfully,

That's quite straightforward - thanks :-)

[mossman]

Security Clearance

Does anyone have experience of how DV clearance is affected by someone in this situation ?

I have a colleague who used a very similar arrangement with enquiries open who is going for a contract that requires DV clearance. I believe HMRC have opened his under discovery. One question on the DV form is around investigations by HMRC in the last 10 years and to provide details.

Anyone know how this would affect his application ?

It would be useful for all of us to know of any experience that anyone has in case anyone else on this forum are also looking into a contract that requires DV clearance.

Your question seems to have been adequately answered by others, but I decided to throw in a few thoughts.

My original letter from HMRC said 'you are not suspected of fraud, but ....'.

Indeed I can't be suspected of fraud because everything was fully declared on my tax returns.

I therefore don't regard myself as 'under investigation by HMRC'.

HMRC are trying to close down a tax planning scheme of which I was a member, and have had to change the law retrospectively in their attempts to do so.

Nothing dodgy about me.

Something very dodgy about HMRC.

[centurian]

I therefore don't regard myself as 'under investigation by HMRC'

Even if you are correct, taking that approach to DV clearance is simply asking for trouble.

Failing to declare something which they think you should have declared is usually an automatic fail - even if declaring it wouldn't have affected the outcome - as appears to be the case with BN66.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Even if you are correct, taking that approach to DV clearance is simply asking for trouble.

Failing to declare something which they think you should have declared is usually an automatic fail - even if declaring it wouldn't have affected the outcome - as appears to be the case with BN66.

WHS

I don't know how the DV question is couched but we are certainly in dispute with the tax authorities. We have appealed formal closure notices which amended our self-assessment returns.

[Ninja]

Graeme Morrice questions Gauke

Graeme Morrice asked Gauke yesterday about the impact on the stability of the UK tax system as a result of the S58 retrospective legislation.

Gauke's reply was "...The protocol makes it clear that fully retrospective legislation will be “wholly exceptional” and limited to circumstances where:

* A significant amount of tax is at stake;
* There is a history of abuse of this area of the legislation;
* There has been a clear statement of policy in the area;
* A clear warning has been given that retrospective action would be taken if abuse of specific legislation continued.
..."

So, where was our 'clear warning', eh? Surely not Padmore