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

[eek]

Don't feed the troll

www.dotas-scandal.org

What's dotas got to do with S58? The people effected by S58 date from well before the DOTAS rules arrived and I don't think accelerated payment affects the people here....

[cojak]

Mods/cojak - please can you delete these irrelevant posts. A polite request has failed. I would like a long ban for thoose involved from both sides.

Its worse than dealing with schoolkids - more like herding cats.....

Done.

Any IR35 debate see here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...35-debate.html

(And I'm still trying to decide what to do about DotasScandal...)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Done.

Any IR35 debate see here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...35-debate.html

(And I'm still trying to decide what to do about DotasScandal...)

DOTAS/accelerated payment is a separate issue but it could affect anyone who has used a BN66 scheme since 2004.

[lucozade]

Mods/cojak - please can you delete these irrelevant posts. A polite request has failed. I would like a long ban for thoose involved from both sides.

Its worse than dealing with schoolkids - more like herding cats.....

What? including me?

[BeenGauked]

Oh look, a Gauke parody account on Twitter

http://twitter.com/BeenGauked

[SantaClaus]

Oh look, a Gauke parody account on Twitter

http://twitter.com/BeenGauked

Nice one, BeenGauked!

I think everyone has a duty to follow this twitter account and retweet.

[Taffia]

Had the following from my MP:-

Dear Sir,
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
Thank you for your letter dated 15 April 2014 enclosing correspondence from your constituent.
We aim to send a substantive response by 14 May 2014.
Yours faithfully
HMRC MinCom Correspondence Team Manager | 2/72, 100 Parliament Street, London, SW1A 2BQ
Tel: 03000 589 668
For Data Security this email has a protect status unless a higher mark is shown

So, we'll see what turns up by the 14th. Forwarded to Whitehouse.

And the 'substantive' reply is as follows:-

. . . . . has provided what he believes to be some further examples of our inappropriate behaviour. We have considered these carefully, but have concluded that the examples draw on material used in compiling the complaint to the Adjudicator and that we cannot identify any areas of concern not already generally reflected in the complaint.

Judith Knott explained in her letter following previous correspondence that we have already provided our response to the Adjudicator in respect of this complaint. I can confirm that, in responding, we did properly consider the material and allegations in the complaint. Therefore, I do not accept that my colleague's letter contained any erroneous statements. We will of course remain ready to consider and new and credible evidence sent to us.

Forwarded to WH.

[AlbionRovers]

And the 'substantive' reply is as follows:-

. . . . . has provided what he believes to be some further examples of our inappropriate behaviour. We have considered these carefully, but have concluded that the examples draw on material used in compiling the complaint to the Adjudicator and that we cannot identify any areas of concern not already generally reflected in the complaint.

Judith Knott explained in her letter following previous correspondence that we have already provided our response to the Adjudicator in respect of this complaint. I can confirm that, in responding, we did properly consider the material and allegations in the complaint. Therefore, I do not accept that my colleague's letter contained any erroneous statements. We will of course remain ready to consider and new and credible evidence sent to us.

Forwarded to WH.

Same dialogue as mine a few weeks back. Standard reply template.

[honeyridges]

MTM Scheme pre-2004

There is more than a connection to ours.

The Montpelier scheme was registered under DOTAS in 2004. Anyone who used the scheme 2004-2008, and put a DOTAS reference number (SRN) on their return, could be targeted come July.

Even if you didn't put an SRN on your return the legislation allows HMRC to deem that you should have done. Even if, like Steed, your promoter didn't register the scheme the legislation allows HMRC to deem that they should have done.

There is virtually no grounds of appeal against a payment notice.

HMRC's stance will be "pay up now and, if you don't like it, take us to court"

Hi

Apologies if this has been covered subsequently - I've not been online for a while and am still catching up (so far I'm still in February..). You refer to 'Anyone who used the scheme 2004-2008' and I was wondering how this disgraceful new regime would apply to folk who used the scheme prior to 2004? For example, if someone used the scheme from 2002-2004, and their 2004 tax return was picked up under Accelerated Payments, does the legislation allow HMRC to apply any demand backwards to include 2002 & 2003 also, or does the fact that DOTAS didn't exist at that point preclude them from doing so?

If this point was covered subsequently I'll no doubt come to it eventually, but would appreciate it if you could offer an opinion again, regardless.

Cheers

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi

Apologies if this has been covered subsequently - I've not been online for a while and am still catching up (so far I'm still in February..). You refer to 'Anyone who used the scheme 2004-2008' and I was wondering how this disgraceful new regime would apply to folk who used the scheme prior to 2004? For example, if someone used the scheme from 2002-2004, and their 2004 tax return was picked up under Accelerated Payments, does the legislation allow HMRC to apply any demand backwards to include 2002 & 2003 also, or does the fact that DOTAS didn't exist at that point preclude them from doing so?

If this point was covered subsequently I'll no doubt come to it eventually, but would appreciate it if you could offer an opinion again, regardless.

Cheers

It's hard to see how AP could apply to tax years that predate DOTAS but at the moment this is an area of uncertainty.