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

[SleepingFireman]

My APN liability is aprox 49k. I have had the pre-apn letter.
I was with MTM.

I'm at a similar level, also with MTM as were the 2 others I know.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Not sure I understand that?

Can you elucidate?

George is the guy who HMRC did a deal with. He put forward a different argument as to why he wasn't liable to tax. He was seriously tempted to take his case to the FTT but in the end decided to accept the deal offered by HMRC.

We have a QC opinion that the George argument has a better than 75% chance at the FTT. In other words, a better than 75% chance that we wouldn't have to pay a single penny.

Now do you see why George could end up biting them on the arse?

[screwthis]

George is the guy who HMRC did a deal with. He put forward a different argument as to why he wasn't liable to tax. He was seriously tempted to take his case to the FTT but in the end decided to accept the deal offered by HMRC.

We have a QC opinion that the George argument has a better than 75% chance at the FTT. In other words, a better than 75% chance that we wouldn't have to pay a single penny.

Now do you see why George could end up biting them on the arse?

Is there nothing in the HMRC charter about "treating customers fairly"? I.e. if a deal is offered to one taxpayer, why would it not be available to another in the same situation? (No sarcastic comments about fair and HMRC in the same sentence).

Was George a contractor using MTM/MP or a big property developer? (Understand you might not want to publish any details here).

[slatt]

George is the guy who HMRC did a deal with. He put forward a different argument as to why he wasn't liable to tax. He was seriously tempted to take his case to the FTT but in the end decided to accept the deal offered by HMRC.

We have a QC opinion that the George argument has a better than 75% chance at the FTT. In other words, a better than 75% chance that we wouldn't have to pay a single penny.

Now do you see why George could end up biting them on the arse?

Are you able to say what that argument was?

I assume that if he was going to take it all the way to FTT and HMRC gave him a better offer to try and stop this and keep their notorious "80% win rate", then they're already aware of the argument so you wont be giving anything away?

[BrilloPad]

George is the guy who HMRC did a deal with. He put forward a different argument as to why he wasn't liable to tax. He was seriously tempted to take his case to the FTT but in the end decided to accept the deal offered by HMRC.

We have a QC opinion that the George argument has a better than 75% chance at the FTT. In other words, a better than 75% chance that we wouldn't have to pay a single penny.

Now do you see why George could end up biting them on the arse?

And I assumed it was George Osbourne!

I thought the 75% was that HMRC would have to come to some sort of settlement - not "wouldn't have to pay a single penny".

Thanks for putting it in words that even thickos like me can understand.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is there nothing in the HMRC charter about "treating customers fairly"? I.e. if a deal is offered to one taxpayer, why would it not be available to another in the same situation? (No sarcastic comments about fair and HMRC in the same sentence).

Was George a contractor using MTM/MP or a big property developer? (Understand you might not want to publish any details here).

Firstly, HMRC would never admit it was a deal. They don't do deals.

They also claim the settlement was purely based on George's individual circumstances. They said we'd be wasting our time pursuing it. Funny that.

George was a contractor.

[smalldog]

George is the guy who HMRC did a deal with. He put forward a different argument as to why he wasn't liable to tax. He was seriously tempted to take his case to the FTT but in the end decided to accept the deal offered by HMRC.

We have a QC opinion that the George argument has a better than 75% chance at the FTT. In other words, a better than 75% chance that we wouldn't have to pay a single penny.

Now do you see why George could end up biting them on the arse?

Hence the cunning avatar!

I do think the treasury and HMRC cocked this one up. As was said somewhere else they should have put all these measures prospectively and grant an Amnesty to unblock the courts with all these historic disputes. It would probably save a wad of cash, not only in HMRC and JR costs but also trying to enforce APN's, it would also ease the burden on the courts system and resources. Ultimately HMRC and the treasury could end up losing after all this so its no slam dunk if they continue on this path.

Prospective measures would allow them to quite rightly hammer anyone that made a conscious decision to enter into these agreements with the new measures in place. Also quite interesting that the HMRC LSS strategy basically doesnt allow anything unless HMRC gets the upper hand. Some pragmatism and business sense would be refreshing.

There is obviously a bottom line impact in terms of the govt coffers and apparently as every pound is precious someone somewhere should be looking at the business case of amnesty, fighting all the way or settling for an amount to save face and also save on lots and lots of legal bills for HMRC.

guess I should continue to dream on.....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I thought the 75% was that HMRC would have to come to some sort of settlement - not "wouldn't have to pay a single penny".

No. The >75% is that we wouldn't have to pay a single penny. Nothing, nada.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Are you able to say what that argument was?

I assume that if he was going to take it all the way to FTT and HMRC gave him a better offer to try and stop this and keep their notorious "80% win rate", then they're already aware of the argument so you wont be giving anything away?

As was stated in the last newsletter, NTRT have sent a technical analysis of the argument to HMRC and are awaiting their response.

If they don't respond promptly, and in the right way, NTRT will proceed with FTT cases.

[screwthis]

Firstly, HMRC would never admit it was a deal. They don't do deals.

They also claim the settlement was purely based on George's individual circumstances. They said we'd be wasting our time pursuing it. Funny that.

George was a contractor.

But they DID do a deal and presumably there is evidence of this that can be shown in court.

Also presume his circumstances were not in fact that unique as we are presenting the argument as applicable to the wider group.