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

[SantaClaus]

I don't know whether he is right or wrong. JusticeJames may be an expert on this sort of thing but I am not. I would be scared sh!tless if I got to the stage where HMRC were demanding money that I could not afford to pay.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to know a bit more about JustinJames credentials before calling him an expert.

Everything else you have posted from TaxAid is how I understood the situation.

[JusticeJames]

I don't know about you, but I'd like to know a bit more about JustinJames credentials before calling him an expert.

Everything else you have posted from TaxAid is how I understood the situation.

I'm no expert in terms of qualifications however iv not just taken the words of a meeting with one lawyer firm (grant thorntons) iv also had meetings with three other top notch " in the know companies". Plus spent over the past year researching every possible scenario etc etc no doubt others have too. You will find most reputable lawyer firms will grant you a meeting free of charge to answer some questions. Pinsent Masons are also making great headway in this kind of retrospective taxation. There are many others too.

[SantaClaus]

I'm no expert in terms of qualifications however iv not just taken the words of a meeting with one lawyer firm (grant thorntons) iv also had meetings with three other top notch " in the know companies". Plus spent over the past year researching every possible scenario etc etc no doubt others have too. You will find most reputable lawyer firms will grant you a meeting free of charge to answer some questions. Pinsent Masons are also making great headway in this kind of retrospective taxation. There are many others too.

If you have anything of interest and in writing from the lawyer firms you have seen, I'd be grateful if you could send them to the NTRT Steering Group at admin at notoretrotax.org.uk. Thanks.

[phileds]

Thanks for the replies, much food for thought, I shall read and digest and get independent advice.

[Iliketax]

I'm no expert in terms of qualifications however iv not just taken the words of a meeting with one lawyer firm (grant thorntons) iv also had meetings with three other top notch " in the know companies". Plus spent over the past year researching every possible scenario etc etc no doubt others have too. You will find most reputable lawyer firms will grant you a meeting free of charge to answer some questions. Pinsent Masons are also making great headway in this kind of retrospective taxation. There are many others too.

Grant Thornton are a good accountancy firm. But I would expect very few of the people there who specialise in tax to understand HMRC's approach to collecting unpaid tax from individuals who cannot pay. It is just not something that most people there will know in any detail.

While a lot of accountancy and law firms will give such free meeting, the advice that they give in relation to HMRC collecting debts (a very specialised subject) may not worth the paper that it isn't written on. If someone does try this approach (and why not?) make sure you gen up on what TaxAid says beforehand. Then ask them some questions that you know the answers to (based on your TaxAid knowledge) and then ask them about the results they personally have achieved, and HMRC's attitude, in their negotiations. With these answers, you'll be in a better position to trust them.

Now JusticeJames may have been lucky enough to speak to just such a person. I don't know.

[BrilloPad]

I think it may be VERY different for HMRC when approaching us on APN and S58.

HMRC will have real trouble getting a judge to sign a bankruptcy order for an APN. Its an unproven debt. The judiciary are corrupt - but not many will go that far. I suppose they might get another Judge Parker(Montpelier did not do enough to settle with HMRC - bollox!) - but there are not that many of them.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC will have real trouble getting a judge to sign a bankruptcy order for an APN. Its an unproven debt.

Technically speaking, if you don't pay an APN, it becomes an enforceable debt just like any other money owed to HMRC. I'm not sure a Judge would have the discretion to treat it differently, especially as the debt was created by an Act of Parliament.

What is not known at the moment is how far HMRC will actually go to enforce APNs.

[BrilloPad]

Technically speaking, if you don't pay an APN, it becomes an enforceable debt just like any other money owed to HMRC. I'm not sure a Judge would have the discretion to treat it differently, especially as the debt was created by an Act of Parliament.

What is not known at the moment is how far HMRC will actually go to enforce APNs.

As the Fairy called Nuff said - fair enough. I was just paraphazing what the NTRT liquidation chap sais when I chatted to him on the phone.

My case might be different - I have no assets apart from an income and am quite happy to live off benefits.

[ASB]

Technically speaking, if you don't pay an APN, it becomes an enforceable debt just like any other money owed to HMRC. I'm not sure a Judge would have the discretion to treat it differently, especially as the debt was created by an Act of Parliament.

What is not known at the moment is how far HMRC will actually go to enforce APNs.

It seems that HMRC do have the framework to enforce. Whether they would have the will is a different thing. It has the potential to go spectacularly wrong - but only after the event :-(

As I understand it:-

-> I sign up for a scheme (if I do that now it would be madness, but assume it is historical)
-> HMRC send me an APN for say 100k.
-> At this point the only oversight that the scheme has had is HMRC saying "it doesn't work, so pay up what would otherwise be due". Nobody has been challenged through a tribunal etc.
-> I don't have 100k
-> They come and take all my assets away via court enforcement; presumably causing bankruptcy. The judge has little to no discretion to say "hang on a minute, it may be an enforceable debt but nobody really knows if it is actually going to be a real debt".
-> Sometime down the line there actually IS a case. Maybe my own. At this point it is decreed the scheme does in fact work.
-> HMRC say, oh dear "here is your 100k back. Terribly sorry about all that".
-> That doesn't really provide much in the way of restitution.

So, the entire thing is predicated on "all schemes fail".

It's not so bad going forwards of course. If I signed up for something today it is perhaps not unreasonable to be, in effect, saying "the potential saving has to go in escrow". That would tilt against schemes of course, but that is the overall objective. It is entirely unreasonable doing it with historical uses. They are a problem with thier existance, but they do really need to be dealt with by what was appropriate at the times they were entered into. That is a simple priciple of natural justice.

It's about as ethical, in my view, as to refusing compensation for unsafe convictions and charging board and lodging for the privilege of being incarcerated.

[elpinar]

a question to everyone

I have a hypothetical that I know won’t be a popular question – but I’m gonna ask it anyway as I am genuinely interested In the answer.

If the APN dropped through your door tomorrow and you had the money to pay – I know everyone would rather not as we all did NOTHING WRONG so why should we – and I’m not talking about you won the lottery so it’s a drop on the ocean – I’m talking virtually all your saving gone or equity in your house or whatever.
so if you could would you pay (obv on day 89) just to close the door on it and have it done or would you still a) believe truth will prevail and we will not have to pay it all/any of it or b) out of principle you would fight on come hell or high water.

Honest answers ….