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

[swede]

So in the case where someone being bankrupted by a demand HMRC still pursue collection. Then what happens if the taxpayer wins? Bankrupted for no reason, what a load of tosh!

That's peoples lives, f***ked - even if they win their appeal.

Even if the bankruptcy is removed from your credit history (if this is even possible), the gap in your CV between jobs where you could not work, would be hard to explain and put off a lot of potential employers.

If this isn't worthy of more letters to MPs, I dont know what is.

[smalldog]

That's peoples lives, f***ked - even if they win their appeal.

Even if the bankruptcy is removed from your credit history (if this is even possible), the gap in your CV between jobs where you could not work, would be hard to explain and put off a lot of potential employers.

If this isn't worthy of more letters to MPs, I dont know what is.

Taking tax when under appeal doesnt make any sense. So if say you owed £100k that you wanted to appeal. But at the time of the appeal you only had £80k, what would happen? In theory you might have enough time from time of lodging the appeal to it potentially being finally due to raise the £20k shortfall to get to the £100k. I dont believe it could be quite that simplistic. Lets see if this really is a proposal and if so how it would operate.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I suspect if it goes ahead it will be framed as an extension of this change to the enforcement rules introduced in 2010.

HM Revenue & Customs: Enforcement of judgements in litigation

"HMRC will not enforce payment in cases where to do so would be likely to drive the taxpayer into liquidation or bankruptcy."

[swede]

Never thought I'd say this....

I suspect if it goes ahead it will be framed as an extension of this change to the enforcement rules introduced in 2010.

HM Revenue & Customs: Enforcement of judgements in litigation

"HMRC will not enforce payment in cases where to do so would be likely to drive the taxpayer into liquidation or bankruptcy."

Well thats jolly decent of them.

[ASB]

I suspect if it goes ahead it will be framed as an extension of this change to the enforcement rules introduced in 2010.

HM Revenue & Customs: Enforcement of judgements in litigation

"HMRC will not enforce payment in cases where to do so would be likely to drive the taxpayer into liquidation or bankruptcy."

The key word there is "likely". Say I had 100k in the bank and potentially owed 100k. So they enforce it. Then 3 weeks later the company goes bust, or I get hit by a bus or whatever. This could drive me into bankruptcy - and that may well not have happened had I still got the 100k.

It's also unclear how aggressive they may with regard to ones assets. Say I lived in a £1m house with no mortgage and had no other assets and a disputed liability of £100k. Could they force sale of the asset to collect?

Personally I find the idea of enforcing before dispute is resolved as abhorrent. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction to the fact that the dispute process takes so long - but whose fault is this? Not the taxpayers generally.

I could just about stomach the "pay now, dispute later" if they were absolutely clear about which assets they would attack, and these should be limited to cash or cash like.

What is more, the principles of natural justice would demand equity. Thus the taxpayer, on victory, should be returned to the position they were in before. This does not mean simply returning their money. It means reinstating their assets - obviously this is going to be impossible in a number of cases.

[CDJ]

Quick point.. This is the wording from the statement:

clamp down further on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, including by preventing
employment intermediaries from disguising employment as self-employment to avoid tax,
and by introducing a new power requiring taxpayers using avoidance schemes that have
already been defeated in the courts to pay the tax they are trying to avoid upfront

key point is already been defeated in the courts - That's pretty ambiguous as written .. better legal minds than mine will likely disseminate in the days ahead..

[lucozade]

Isle of Man Disclosure Facility

Erm, just received another letter from Montpelier today. 2 in one month is a shocker!

This one kind of put the fear of death into me because it's all about the need to disclose things to HMRC.

Haven't we already done this via our self assessment tax returns or am I missing the point?

[redkieran]

Timescale?

So my wife saw this and is now asking how it affects us. Obviously we don't know the full info, but when could this become law? At what point will HMRC be able to enforce it if it is?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So my wife saw this and is now asking how it affects us. Obviously we don't know the full info, but when could this become law? At what point will HMRC be able to enforce it if it is?

If you are referring to the new enforcement proposals announced in the pre-budget report, I think we need to wait to see the actual detail.

Personally, I doubt this will affect us.

[Fireship]

So my wife saw this and is now asking how it affects us. Obviously we don't know the full info, but when could this become law? At what point will HMRC be able to enforce it if it is?

My understanding is the rules come into force in 2016 and it doesn’t affect us as it’s aimed at evasion / non-disclosure.