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

[BrilloPad]

I don't post here just read and subscribe to NTRT, but I thought I would mention this. I received my 1- 8 week warning the other day. It clearly says to call if you can't pay so I thought I would so they have it on record.

The person I spoke to didn't seem to have a clue what I was talking about and after a little time on hold they came back to inform me that I will have to wait for the APN then contact collections to discuss. I asked what they would do as it clearly told me to call on the letter. Was told they can't do anything but will put a note on my file.

(Note to Hector - A little more staff training would probably help)

Didn't expect any more from them, but why put that in the letter in the first place other than to say in court that they were fair and gave us the option to get in touch. I assume there must be a rule somewhere that says they must put this in, but maybe not one saying they have to do anything with the contact.

When the APN comes it will go to MP and fingers crossed the JR will halt the process, but if anyone if thinking whether to call and say they can't pay I would say do it. What harm can it do? My view is if we get to the day I have to discuss this with collection I can honestly say I made contact at the earliest opportunity, now can I have 10 years to repay please?

Personally I followed the montpelier advice - don't contact them.

And as there is no amount on the letter, how do you know you cannot pay?

My wife works for HMRC. Once she set up a load of people saying they owed zero tax. One person complained - that ruined it for all.

This actually happened to me in 1991 - I could not believe my luck.

HMRC have been proven to be liars and cheats. If they told me the sun would rise tomorrow I would look out of the window to check.

Personally I would now contact Montpelier to let them know what happened. DR did supply the contact details.

BP
PS Thanks for no longer lurking and the update!

[webberg]

Spot on and that's something else that anoys me. Apparently there's tax avoidance, aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion.

So how can someone avoiding say, £1.6m not be 'aggressive avoidance' yet someone avoiding <=£150k be 'aggressive'?

It's the old joke that if you owe the bank £100,000 it's your problem. If you owe them £1,000,000, it's their problem.

[DotasScandal]

What I don't understand is how the relatively small amount I saved is considered 'aggressive tax avoidance' while his saving of £1.6m is not.

It is not about how much you avoided, it is is about who you are. Britain is a class society, and it is a great crime (in the eyes of our dear "representatives") when a member of the underclass dares indulging in what is reserved to the "elite".

[BolshieBastard]

If you want to put it on record you should write a letter rather than making a phone call.

Registered and signed for delivery. Letters can get 'lost' too!

When I worked in a Department many years ago, I know of one member of staff who hid claimant's correspondence in the round filing cabinet and others in their desk drawer!

[BrilloPad]

Registered and signed for delivery. Letters can get 'lost' too!

When I worked in a Department many years ago, I know of one member of staff who hid claimant's correspondence in the round filing cabinet and others in their desk drawer!

My first ex-wife confirmed that when HMRC get letters they bin anything complex. If they can't find the file they put it to one side. They try again a month later. If they still can't find the file they bin it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

When will you know if Montpellier JR action will prevent APNs being enforced? Is this something that a judge will rule or that a lawyer can advise if the fight can be an overarching one?

Very good question, and we don't know the answer.

Normally a JR is applied for in one person's name (as was the case with the Huitson JR).

Understandably this is of utmost concern to everyone at the moment, especially those people who won't be able to pay APNs. Hopefully Montpelier will address this in the coming weeks.

[Morlock]

APN/CTD

I have been musing on the fact that an APN demand will be only for the principal sum of tax being demanded, and will not include any of the interest which is alleged to have accrued. Having paid an APN, further interest will not be added to the sum being pursued.

So in effect, it looks like an APN has the same effect as a CTD. Except the APN is compulsory.

I would therefore not be surprised if existing CTD's were to be confiscated to pay for an APN.

[elpinar]

am i wonrg?

But un til an actially real APN turns up for one of us Mont p cant do anything to officially start this process as the / coming soon/ letter is not the real deal that they would need to object to

Still dont get though why some of us got a 1-4 week letter and the majoity 1-8

Very good question, and we don't know the answer.

Normally a JR is applied for in one person's name (as was the case with the Huitson JR).

Understandably this is of utmost concern to everyone at the moment, especially those people who won't be able to pay APNs. Hopefully Montpelier will address this in the coming weeks.

[elpinar]

am i missing the point

if you have a CTD why would you not use it to pay the APN ? so they dont need to do any confiscating as CTD owners will surely be handing them over .... else you would be giving them two lots of cash to look after ?

Guess the only thing would be timing - if it is your choice - you can hand over your CTD on day 89 .... if its taken im guessing that would happen on day 1 !!!! Which would be rubbish - as if the hope is that a JR stops them that wont be happeneing on Day 1 will it

I have been musing on the fact that an APN demand will be only for the principal sum of tax being demanded, and will not include any of the interest which is alleged to have accrued. Having paid an APN, further interest will not be added to the sum being pursued.

So in effect, it looks like an APN has the same effect as a CTD. Except the APN is compulsory.

I would therefore not be surprised if existing CTD's were to be confiscated to pay for an APN.

[normalbloke]

I have been musing on the fact that an APN demand will be only for the principal sum of tax being demanded, and will not include any of the interest which is alleged to have accrued. Having paid an APN, further interest will not be added to the sum being pursued.

So in effect, it looks like an APN has the same effect as a CTD. Except the APN is compulsory.

I would therefore not be surprised if existing CTD's were to be confiscated to pay for an APN.

Can they do that? I thought CTD's belong to the taxpayers that bought them, not HMRC?