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

[portseven]

Can we go to the HMRC investications unit and doorstep them - both me and my mussis have a few strong words for induviduals behind this whole sorry saga

I am supprised they still have their jobs

[Ooops]

Did they open an actual enquiry? Did you get a closure notice or discovery assessment?

It's debatable whether the July 2008 letter would constitute an enquiry.

For 06-07
I can't find any formal letter saying they will open an enquiry. I have a closure notice dated May 2009
For 07-08
In September 2009 they wrote to "inform you that I intend to make enquiries in to your tax return"
I have a closure notice dated April 2011

Today I received my actual APN's, just a few days after my notice letter (you see they can be efficent!!) I was degraaf, so still not sure where to turn for FTT so can't even see and option to get any justice.

[ASB]

There is nothing stopping anyone going to the FTT whenever they want. Obviously it's pointless unless you put forward a different legal argument than Huitson. George is an entirely different legal argument (chalk and cheese).

Sorry to labour the point.

Let us just assume X loses at FTT. There is no indication of X appealing. So that specific case is done and dusted. (Heaven forbid there might be some deal done after the event which was enough to encourage X not to appeal and settle the matter).

Now, it so happens my circumstances are the same. Such as going to FTT would be pointless.

The advice I have received is that the FTT was wrong because of X (i.e. the legal argument is the same however it they erred in law). What then. How does this work ?

Is there a direct route to the higher authority ? Or do I have to go through the charade of an FTT simply in order to try and appeal ?

It would be entirely unreasonable if my avenue for getting a case heard became barred because somebody else was prepared to settle.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The advice I have received is that the FTT was wrong because of X (i.e. the legal argument is the same however it they erred in law). What then. How does this work ?

You apply to the FTT, citing the point of law.

Everyone is entitled to have their case heard. Obviously if you put forward a load of rubbish then it will be dismissed very quickly, and you'd never get permission to appeal to the UT.

In our case, however, the George legal argument is nothing like the argument put forward in Huitson. We're talking about a completely different part of the tax code. Chalk and Cheese.

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

As Santa said - its like playing chess with a pigeon. All they do it knock the pieces over, crap everywhere and strut round like they have won. Of course thats easy for me to say - no money and I am happy to go on benefits.

hysterical post award

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Chalk and Cheese

And this is why HMRC probably never considered the George argument themselves.

They had Cheese SI investigating the scheme. If only they'd referred it to Chalk SI...

[OnYourBikeGB]

You apply to the FTT, citing the point of law.

Everyone is entitled to have their case heard. Obviously if you put forward a load of rubbish then it will be dismissed very quickly, and you'd never get permission to appeal to the UT.

In our case, however, the George legal argument is nothing like the argument put forward in Huitson. We're talking about a completely different part of the tax code. Chalk and Cheese.

In terms of representation, HMRC may count on us not being able to afford it, but if the point is established, I'm sure there will be no-win / no-fee solicitors willing to step in too. And being the nasty people they are, they might even be happy to go for malicious prosecution damages on the same basis. As Harry Enfield might have put it to HMRC 'is that what you want, cos that's what will 'appen'?

[BolshieBastard]

To answer the above questions.

The George argument can't have a lead/test case in the true sense of the word because there is an element which depends on individual circumstances, even though Counsel believes everyone would meet the criteria.

In theory, every one of us would have to take our case to the FTT individually. Obviously we don't want to have to do that. And HMRC probably wouldn't want that either.

If HMRC refuse to engage in meaningful settlement talks then we will have no choice but to start taking cases to the FTT. Probably a handful to start with. We've already got several volunteers lined up.

I'm sure HMRC think we're bluffing but that's their call.

I thought a case could only go to a tribunal after HMRC had made a decision and the apellant made the appeal to it (the tribunal)?

If that is not the case, why the **** didnt MP instigate the 4 original Test Cases to a tribunal back in the day?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I thought a case could only go to a tribunal after HMRC had made a decision and the apellant made the appeal to it (the tribunal)?

If that is not the case, why the **** didnt MP instigate the 4 original Test Cases to a tribunal back in the day?

HMRC issued CNs to the 4 test cases. Montpelier appealed on their behalf. HMRC then wrote back saying they would be listing them for hearing at the Special Commissioners. If you recall, HMRC wrote to many of us asking if we agreed to be bound by the commissioners. Next thing Montpelier hear is that HMRC are going for retro.

If Montpelier had had a crystal ball then they could have done things differently but no-one expected retrospective legislation.

[BolshieBastard]

HMRC issued CNs to the 4 test cases. Montpelier appealed on their behalf. HMRC then wrote back saying they would be listing them for hearing at the Special Commissioners. If you recall, HMRC wrote to many of us asking if we agreed to be bound by the commissioners. Next thing Montpelier hear is that HMRC are going for retro.

Yep, appreciate and understand that. But, Im not sure anyone can refer their tax case to a tribunal as mentioned. Im not trying to trip you up, just trying to clarify.

When I did adjudication on benefits years ago, the claimant couldnt go to an appeals tribunal until a formal decision on the claim had been made.

Ergo, if hmrc say they arent doing a deal on the 'George' scenario, I dont see how NTRT can take anything to an FTTT unless or until hmrc have given a formal decision on someone's tax claim.

'George' is just a settlement option. It isnt a decision on anyone's tax dispute.

EDIT, except for George himself.