Originally posted by OnYourBikeGB
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
Tax Trumps
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostPayment on Account
Be careful what you are telling your MP.
Some people may only have been advised by HMRC to make a PoA in 2007 but that is not true for everyone, especially those who joined in the early years.
For example, HMRC's testimony to the High Court reveals that Huitson was advised to make a PoA for 2001/2 in June 2004.
Forget PoA - it's a red herring.
The key points of rebuttal to the Gauke letter are outlined in H006.
Quite true DR and I doubt anyone would choose the word CONSISTENT to apply to how HMRC 'informed' people over a 5 or 6 year period. But I can trump you:
Simon Davis (Assistant Director, Business International, Litigation Team of HMRC), which I think does trump your HMRC 'Project Manager' stated in evidence for the JR that:
"I can confirm that the first time HMRC conveyed its view to Montpelier, or its scheme users, that the 1987 legislation actually applied to these schemes was in February 2008. It was explained that:
'Although there is no definition of "member of a firm" [in the 1987 legislation], it is at the very least implicit that it includes persons who are entitled to a share (especially a significant share) of the partnerships profits. You as beneficiary under the trust are entitled to a share (indeed, a significant share) of the partnership profits. You are therefore a "member of a firm" and, as a UK resident, thereby liable to tax on your share of the partnership profits.'
I'll leave the next paragraph out that starts with:
'Even if that were not the case....' as that would make me wince if I worked for HMRC on this case!
So even this fella admits that the basis for the scheme not working and the legislative reason only happened in 2008! Sweet Baby Jesus! I could care less if HMRC suggested someone paid on account. If you owe it because the law says so then tell me the law that makes it so and then transaction occurs. BUT, there was no CONSISTENCY from HMRC, senior HMRC officials confirm that 2008 was the first time they informed us that 1987 applies - even though it did not and never had until s.58 (not even ITTOIA 2005 for the benefit of HMRC if they are watching).
So, sorry, but my card trumps others. Whatever HMRC claimed they said to whom and when and how often - and I think I'm sure that "consistent" is the last word I'd use to describe whatever they claimed to have done, HMRC also confirm that 2008 was the first time they stated the law that is now (and not before) s.58 applies - Heaven Above! WW2 took less time to conclude than HMRC figuring out that Padmore applied to us - when it didn't.
We may have to update the NTRT timeline graphic to show some 2000+ timelines of what HMRC 'consistently' told everyone.Comment
-
Originally posted by Toocan View PostIt is important to stress what The Donkey said earlier:
There is a difference between
- The suggestion “to make a Payment on Account”
and
- The statement “that the scheme did not work”
No one would make a payment on account unless they expected that they would have further tax to pay. This turned on whether the scheme worked.
HMRC did not tell anyone that they believed the scheme did not work until 16th May 2007. Even where HMRC wrote to scheme users prior to that date the never gave a clear statement as to whether the scheme achieved its purpose.
Document B015, Page 12, Paragraph 32 explains this from the horse’s mouth
Prior to 16th May 2007 HMRC were firmly on the fence in their letters – probably because they had document I007 that made it very clear that the scheme worked.
They first told me in a letter dated 16 June 2004 that they are "aware of the payment structure and in particular the use of your trust as vehicle for receiving income". Further to this, without mentioning specifics they state they are "likely" to challenge.
There is an inexplicable delay between the two letters that somewhat contradicts their claim that they "always" maintained the scheme didn't work.
As the police say - "... it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court ...". The reference to Archer Shee is irrelevant to the argument because they didn't base the retrospection on it.
The PoA argument HMRC use to partly justify the retrospection is load of carp. Basically it is extortion.
As has been mentioned every case is different.
The idea of a "guerrilla" war as regards tax tribunals is rather appealing if it is true that we can all have our individual tribunals. How expensive would 3000+ tribunals be for HMRC, although we would probably have to represent ourselves in most cases? In my view we should try and force a settlement along the Suo Motu lines as the best possible outcome we can hope for and this is a card we have.Comment
-
BR I do not agree
Originally posted by bananarepublic View PostThe first time HMRC told me that in their opinion the scheme didn't work was in a letter dated 14 February 2006 where they mentioned the Archer Shee v Baker precedent (Section 739 I think).
They first told me in a letter dated 16 June 2004 that they are "aware of the payment structure and in particular the use of your trust as vehicle for receiving income". Further to this, without mentioning specifics they state they are "likely" to challenge.
There is an inexplicable delay between the two letters that somewhat contradicts their claim that they "always" maintained the scheme didn't work.
As the police say - "... it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court ...". The reference to Archer Shee is irrelevant to the argument because they didn't base the retrospection on it.
The PoA argument HMRC use to partly justify the retrospection is load of carp. Basically it is extortion.
As has been mentioned every case is different.
The idea of a "guerrilla" war as regards tax tribunals is rather appealing if it is true that we can all have our individual tribunals. How expensive would 3000+ tribunals be for HMRC, although we would probably have to represent ourselves in most cases? In my view we should try and force a settlement along the Suo Motu lines as the best possible outcome we can hope for and this is a card we have.Comment
-
Originally posted by OldITGit View PostAny talk of a settlement implies that you admit that the tax planning scheme was not legal at its inception and based on the facts and documentation available in NTRT that is obviously not the case
Tax planning is legalNinja
'Salad is a dish best served cold'Comment
-
Originally posted by SantaClaus View PostAgree.
If people on this forum believe (like me) that what has happened is a serious miscarriage of justice, then the only answer is for it to be righted. Not some half baked deal with HMRC that may or may not happen.MUTS likes it HotComment
-
Comment
-
Amber Valley in Derbyshire anyone?
Does anyone live in Amber Valley in Derbyshire, and have Nigel Mills as their MP?Comment
-
Originally posted by OldITGit View PostAny talk of a settlement implies that you admit that the tax planning scheme was not legal at its inception and based on the facts and documentation available in NTRT that is obviously not the caseComment
-
Twitter Feeds
Can someone just confirm the validity of the couple of latest tweets ? After the last one just a bit scepticalComment
Topic is closed
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment