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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Looks like July 2014

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...-december-2013

Didn't the HMRC brief say that they would not try and enforce payment until the legal process had run it's course?

Yes, but I wouldn't put it past them trying to renege on that.

[WhatEver]

Just the tax from july '14 ?

I would assume it would be just the tax they'd be collecting at that point (as opposed to outstanding interest which is huge for early adopters like me) ??

Typical, two law changes to grab the cash... amazing.

What's HMRC's motivation to tackle the disputes.. none ...one step away from dictatorship

[mossman]

MOU

I've just received the Montp letter about the new Memorandum of Understanding.

They say 'We are unable to provide tax advice on this matter ...'.

Why? I thought that's what they were there for.

All I want to know is, do I have to disclose anything, or can I take it that the fact that this is going on means that it's in effect already disclosed?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I would assume it would be just the tax they'd be collecting at that point (as opposed to outstanding interest which is huge for early adopters like me) ??

Typical, two law changes to grab the cash... amazing.

What's HMRC's motivation to tackle the disputes.. none ...one step away from dictatorship

My understanding is that they would still have to win a tribunal case (FTT) before they could attempt to collect.

None of the earlier court cases (HC, CoA, SC) count because these were a judicial review of the legislation, not tax appeals.

I would expect the FTT case to be heard some time next year but, on the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if it slipped until 2015 because there's a hell of a backlog in the courts.

[SantaClaus]

Weekend fun

If you fancy a bit of fun, you can nominate HMRC for the "2013 wooden spoon" award for most complained about organisation in the Daily Moan:

Wooden Spoon 2013: The terrible ten that had you howling with rage this year | Mail Online

Apparently, it's the 4th year on the trot they have appeared on the list

[Buzby]

IoM Disclosure

Erm, just received another letter from Montpelier today. 2 in one month is a shocker!

This one kind of put the fear of death into me because it's all about the need to disclose things to HMRC.

Haven't we already done this via our self assessment tax returns or am I missing the point?

just received my letter, and agree with you Lucozade - '... should you believe that there could have been a non-disclosure to HMRC ...'

Since all income was on self assessment would I need to do anything?

[StellaFan]

just received my letter, and agree with you Lucozade - '... should you believe that there could have been a non-disclosure to HMRC ...'

Since all income was on self assessment would I need to do anything?

Willing to be corrected but I seem to remember a while ago (on the old scheme) that filling in the whitespace on the self assessment was your choice, though it was recommended to do so.

[OneUnited]

MontP Second Letter

Hi,

I am little confused as to how I should be replying to this.
Can anyone enlighten me about what I/We should do as it would appear from the letter that MontP won't advise us.

[Fireship]

not true according to the BBC website:

BBC News - Autumn Statement: Bid to recoup £9bn in unpaid tax

If you have used a marketed avoidance scheme which HM Revenue and Custom (HMRC) believes to be ineffective, they will challenge the scheme in the courts.

Usually one or two cases are selected as test cases and take several years to go through the courts. The rest - called "followers" by HMRC - sit and wait to see what happens. During this time, followers normally retain the benefit of the tax saving, and HMRC have to recover the money later if they win in the courts.

ew rules are expected to make two changes. Firstly, if the scheme is defeated at any stage in the courts, followers will be asked to concede their case. If they do not, because they hope the test case will succeed on appeal, they will be charged a penalty if the test case is eventually lost on the same point of law.

Secondly, once HMRC have won in the courts, the followers who do not concede will have to pay over the tax which has been avoided, even though the test case itself appeals to a higher court.

The government will also consult on whether to tighten these rules further, to prevent those using tax avoidance arrangements gaining a cash-flow advantage while it is under challenge.

Agreed, however the letter is in reference to the MOU and non-disclosure, therefore assuming all appropriate information was disclosed then there is no impact on us.

What you have posted is separate but more worrying matter.

[smalldog]

Agreed, however the letter is in reference to the MOU and non-disclosure, therefore assuming all appropriate information was disclosed then there is no impact on us.

What you have posted is separate but more worrying matter.

I read from this that if we lose at the FTT then thats pretty much it, we need to pay up or face the penalties. To be honest Im at the stage where I just want an outcome so I can move on. Does beg the question what if you cant, which DR answered in an earlier post that they will not enforce. BUT does that mean there wont be any penalty as its not wont pay but cant.

Think we need to see some more small print before were sure if and how it affects us. For example, if you pay and HMRC lose at appeal do you get to charge them a penalty?