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

[Disgusted of Coventry]

...
It is clear that they are looking for a quick and dirty way to deal with the 65,000 open case backlog.

Has this in any way evolved from the Huitson judgment - where Parker partly justified s58 on the grounds that "litigation would probably have been protracted, costly and uncertain"?

If elements of that judgment are precedents (at least as far as A1P1 applies to UK Tax Law), then the implications are almost absurd. It's seems to allow HMRC to do as they please precisely because Tax Law is complex and the Courts are expensive & geologically slow.

[ASB]

the (yet) is my worry.... i am considering whether it is worth paying the damn bill (at least for some years) and getting those shut down so that they are done and dusted should they then start inflicting more damage by way of penalties
i presume if they have received payment and accept it .. they cannot then later add penalties ... but should we overturn the rule - i presume i could apply for the tax back .... although that would seem sceewed in my favour so MUST be wrong !!!!!

If you pay the bill I believe thats it. You have accepted the income was classified as whatever hmrc said it was.

if a case is subsequently won you wont get what you paid back.

at least that is my understanding.

[smalldog]

If you pay the bill I believe thats it. You have accepted the income was classified as whatever hmrc said it was.

if a case is subsequently won you wont get what you paid back.

at least that is my understanding.

Paying the bill is very different from paying money on account. Paying on account stops the interest accuring but isnt technically paying so you could request a repayment at anytime until such time as the liability is finally deemed due.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Lies, damn lies and HMRC

According to the consultation, HMRC reckon there are 65,000 open cases involving marketed tax avoidance. Note that this is only "marketed" schemes. Many schemes will be used by hundreds, if not thousands, of users. The actual number of schemes that need investigating and litigating is therefore a tiny fraction of this number.

As we know, HMRC have a habit of opening enquiries and leaving them languishing for years. They accuse taxpayers of dragging their heels to gain a cash flow advantage, when in fact more often than not it is HMRC who delay matters.

It has been reported that HMRC win 80% of tax tribunals, the inference being that the vast majority of schemes don't work. However, their litigation and settlement strategy only permits them to take cases to court where they have a good chance of success, so it's not surprising that they win most of them. The cases where they have little or no prospect of winning never get to court.

The new DOTAS proposal will allow them to extract (extort) money from people in cases where HMRC know full well that they have little hope of ever winning.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Paying the bill is very different from paying money on account. Paying on account stops the interest accuring but isnt technically paying so you could request a repayment at anytime until such time as the liability is finally deemed due.

I'm not so sure about that. My understanding is, if you pay on account, you will only get the money repaid when you win.

If you want to stop the interest, but be able to withdraw the money at any time, then you need a CTD.

[smalldog]

I'm not so sure about that. My understanding is, if you pay on account, you will only get the money repaid when you win.

If you want to stop the interest, but be able to withdraw the money at any time, then you need a CTD.

from my understanding, the liability is postponed so any payment on account will build up a credit in your HMRC account. Until such time as the postponement is removed then its a credit balance at HMRC that you can request to be repaid as essentially money is not due. I have it in writing from HMRC that they suggest you pay on account to stop interest accruing that is not the same as settling or paying the liability.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

from my understanding, the liability is postponed so any payment on account will build up a credit in your HMRC account. Until such time as the postponement is removed then its a credit balance at HMRC that you can request to be repaid as essentially money is not due. I have it in writing from HMRC that they suggest you pay on account to stop interest accruing that is not the same as settling or paying the liability.

Even if you're right I'd be careful. I've heard from several people recently that HMRC are increasingly playing hardball with refunds of overpaid tax.

[smalldog]

Even if you're right I'd be careful. I've heard from several people recently that HMRC are increasingly playing hardball with refunds of overpaid tax.

indeed, not sure if there is a perfect risk free option, if there is then.....!!

[screwthis]

indeed, not sure if there is a perfect risk free option, if there is then.....!!

You could buy a CTD every month.
Bit of admin overhead but doable.

From http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/payinghmrc/cert-tax-deposit.htm

Your first tax deposit must be for a minimum of £500
The minimum for subsequent deposits is £250

[smalldog]

You could buy a CTD every month.
Bit of admin overhead but doable.

From HM Revenue & Customs: The Certificate of Tax Deposit scheme

Your first tax deposit must be for a minimum of £500
The minimum for subsequent deposits is £250

Hi SC, thanks for the link might be worth doing it this way instead then, but as you say bit of admin!