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

[OnYourBikeGB]

NTRT only found out a few days before the hearing.

Montpelier hadn't known much longer. Up until the end of December they were still exchanging papers with HMRC and there was no inkling that it was imminent. The whole thing seems to have come out of the blue at very short notice.

Apparently Montpelier did try and persuade the court to delay it until after the Shiner UT in October but, for whatever reason, the court decided it should still go ahead.

I suppose that practically rules out us getting APNs. There wouldn't be much point now when there's bigger fish to fry.

It is stunning that we could end up being caught by a spirit of the law which was clearly not the spirit of the law when the law was drafted. So when they still didn't get it right, even when it's been fully, clearly and transparently laid out for them, they can fall back on 'Sorry, we c*cked it up again, but what we meant was ...'. Why bother with 'clarification'? Why didn't they just go for it in the first place if that's the case? This has been an awful experience, but I have a much clearer understanding of how the system works, and it is truly horrifying. How can anyone rely on the law, when it can be brushed aside so casually? In our case a law that was over 20 years old? The IR35 angle is one to watch. It's next.

[BolshieBastard]

No-one here is surprised.

I think some here wish that NTRT had emailed when they knew - but I don't see the point. This will now be fought on a legal level.

There is nothing we can do - just as well as no-one here wants to get stuck in.

What would be nice is to know when CNs will be enforced. I would love WG to answer that one. If he doesn't know - then just say. Thats okay.

Any advanced notice of UTTTTT would be great. Rumour is Nov 2015.

And just heighten some people's panic factor?

Id rather have the facts after the hearing myself.

[OneUnited]

NTRT only found out a few days before the hearing.

Montpelier hadn't known much longer. Up until the end of December they were still exchanging papers with HMRC and there was no inkling that it was imminent. The whole thing seems to have come out of the blue at very short notice.

Apparently Montpelier did try and persuade the court to delay it until after the Shiner UT in October but, for whatever reason, the court decided it should still go ahead.

Thanks for the update DR

So suddenly out of the blue they decided to press ahead with the FTT, I always live in hope but maybe both NTRT and WG are rattling a few HMRC feathers maybe this explains their shambolic presentation at the FTT.

Not sure if I fully understand it but "purposive legislation" is a worry though, will this have any effect on how NTRT proceed should the FTT be lost via "purposive legislation"

[BrilloPad]

And just heighten some people's panic factor?

Id rather have the facts after the hearing myself.

You want a situation where the first thing you know is when the CN enforcement comes through your door giving you 30 days to pay?

[deckster]

You want a situation where the first thing you know is when the CN enforcement comes through your door giving you 30 days to pay?

Frankly anybody who doesn't already have a plan in place for what they will do when this happens needs to have their head looked at - it's not like we'll be able claim that it's a surprise! It's all very nice watching from the sidelines, but the fact remains that regardless of what else is going on, HMRC currently have the power to drop an APN on our heads at any time with very little comeback from our part.

[webberg]

You want a situation where the first thing you know is when the CN enforcement comes through your door giving you 30 days to pay?

By "CN" does that mean Closure Notice?

If so, when a CN is issued it should be regarded as a final statement of HMRC's position, i.e. you owe me £x.

A closure notice is ALWAYS appealable. If an appeal is made then an application can be made to postpone tax. Unless there are good reasons to think that a taxpayer will never actually pay, then denying that postponement application is rare.

More of a worry would be the issue of a Follower Notice should a case that HMRC decide is "similar" become final. That notice would probably arrive with an APN against which there is no appeal.

[BrilloPad]

By "CN" does that mean Closure Notice?

If so, when a CN is issued it should be regarded as a final statement of HMRC's position, i.e. you owe me £x.

A closure notice is ALWAYS appealable. If an appeal is made then an application can be made to postpone tax. Unless there are good reasons to think that a taxpayer will never actually pay, then denying that postponement application is rare.

More of a worry would be the issue of a Follower Notice should a case that HMRC decide is "similar" become final. That notice would probably arrive with an APN against which there is no appeal.

CN=Closure Notice.

CNs were issued ages ago - 5 or 6 years.

Is the UTTT(Upper Tier Tax Tribunal) the final appeal against a CN? How long after one loses a UTTT will a CN be payable? Bear in mind there are 2000 of us!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is the UTTT(Upper Tier Tax Tribunal) the final appeal against a CN? How long after one loses a UTTT will a CN be payable? Bear in mind there are 2000 of us!

Firstly, if Montpelier lose at the FTT, they would have to seek permission to appeal to the UT. This is likely to be granted but not guaranteed.

If the case is lost at the UT, Montpelier could appeal to the Court of Appeal, and then the Supreme Court.

At each stage Montpelier would have to get permission to appeal. You can't assume it will go all the way. A court might refuse permission.

HMRC can only issue a follower notice after all appeals have been exhausted.

I guess what you, and everyone else, wants to know is when could you be forced to pay. Unfortunately that's a difficult question to answer, as it depends how far the appeals process goes.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Just listening to Gauke & co squirm their way out of the jobs for old boys appointment of Lord Green. Bunch of two-faced hypocritical tulips. We just didn't go to the right school, did we?

[OnYourBikeGB]

Firstly, if Montpelier lose at the FTT, they would have to seek permission to appeal to the UT. This is likely to be granted but not guaranteed.

If the case is lost at the UT, Montpelier could appeal to the Court of Appeal, and then the Supreme Court.

At each stage Montpelier would have to get permission to appeal. You can't assume it will go all the way. A court might refuse permission.

HMRC can only issue a follower notice after all appeals have been exhausted.

I guess what you, and everyone else, wants to know is when could you be forced to pay. Unfortunately that's a difficult question to answer, as it depends how far the appeals process goes.

On that point - are we not already headed for the UT as the FTT won't hear the argument on free movement of capital?