Judicial Review of APN has been requested ...

[lilikins1]

I'm totally against APNs. I'm just saying that, as far as the Government are concerned, it's open season on anyone who used a scheme. Normal rights don't apply.

We ll have to see about that

[lilikins1]

This is generally how governments operate.

Also, the whole phrase "accused of tax avoidance" annoys me. They really are pushing the whole tax avoidance = tax evasion, where it suits them to do so, except perhaps when it comes to buying votes via ISAs and favourable pension changes.

Anyway, good luck with the whole thing. Never used any of these sort of schemes, but the powers Hector is gaining are so dangerous and prone to abuse of power that they should be challenged.

I bet you there are a few thousand people at the moment thinking about maxing out their credit and leaving for another country

[centurian]

APN s just sound wrong at face value. If you were to explain the concept to a ten year old they d tell you it s injust. 'So we haven t agreed if I owe you money but you want the money off me whilst we argue it?'. Leaving me no money to be able to argue with you?

Devil's advocate, but that's how PAYE works - they seize the money from you at source - on the assumption that you will ultimately end up owing that amount of tax, which isn't always correct if you have multiple jobs and/or switch jobs.

Only when it is shown at the end of the year that you have overpaid - will they definitely refund you. Mid-year, you can argue your point - and they might hand over the money, but no guarantees - although RTI does improve this a bit.

Not saying it's directly translatable, but I think the above point is the crux of the HMRC argument. The concept of taking what they believe is the correct amount at the earliest opportunity has been ingrained in the tax system for yonks.

I think that's also their defence against the retrospection argument - that they are extending a well established concept to everyone

Whether courts will agree with that is another matter.

[lilikins1]

Sorry completely unacceptable to bankrupt people over money that hasn t been proven as owed

[Zero Liability]

The thing is, unjust behaviour doesn't suddenly become just simply because it's been done for donkey's years. That simply adds insult to injury. You could muster up similar defences of slavery and the like, and they'd be flawed for the same reason - it just doesn't follow.

I bet you there are a few thousand people at the moment thinking about maxing out their credit and leaving for another country

I'm certainly re-evaluating whether I'd like to stay in this country longer term.

[jbryce]

Not saying it's directly translatable, but I think the above point is the crux of the HMRC argument. The concept of taking what they believe is the correct amount at the earliest opportunity has been ingrained in the tax system for yonks.

It isn't directly translatable because surety of the law requires that the law is applied to the circumstances as the law was at the time. There is no right of appeal to an APN - it could be wrong, bankrupt you and at no point would you be in a position to get redress in Law.
APNs are retrospective, I don't even think HMRC would really argue the toss over that one - they don't care.

The argument that matters is can governments apply tax laws retrospectively? - which is one for the lawyers of a more philosophical bent.

It's unfair, true, but it's what they are doing.

[lilikins1]

APN s are a concept born from desperation to grab money, at whatever cost

[StrengthInNumbers]

Devil's advocate, but that's how PAYE works - they seize the money from you at source - on the assumption that you will ultimately end up owing that amount of tax, which isn't always correct if you have multiple jobs and/or switch jobs.

Only when it is shown at the end of the year that you have overpaid - will they definitely refund you. Mid-year, you can argue your point - and they might hand over the money, but no guarantees - although RTI does improve this a bit.

Not saying it's directly translatable, but I think the above point is the crux of the HMRC argument. The concept of taking what they believe is the correct amount at the earliest opportunity has been ingrained in the tax system for yonks.

I think that's also their defence against the retrospection argument - that they are extending a well established concept to everyone

Whether courts will agree with that is another matter.

Completely agree. Just saying don't go back an say we are changing PAYE rules from 10 years and now give more money or go bankrupt. In other words, as they are doing now, put law in place so that these schemes are not available and where available you know clearly in front payment will be required.

Applying a new law retrospectively to cases where their exist a big chance no tax might be due is just evil.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Devil's advocate, but that's how PAYE works - they seize the money from you at source - on the assumption that you will ultimately end up owing that amount of tax, which isn't always correct if you have multiple jobs and/or switch jobs.

Only when it is shown at the end of the year that you have overpaid - will they definitely refund you. Mid-year, you can argue your point - and they might hand over the money, but no guarantees - although RTI does improve this a bit.

Not saying it's directly translatable, but I think the above point is the crux of the HMRC argument. The concept of taking what they believe is the correct amount at the earliest opportunity has been ingrained in the tax system for yonks.

I think that's also their defence against the retrospection argument - that they are extending a well established concept to everyone

Whether courts will agree with that is another matter.

You run a Ltd Co, yes?

Suppose HMRC wrote to you this week querying your IR35 status, saying that they believed you had underpaid £100k in tax over the past 5 years.

And then they said, oh and by the way, hand over the money now. If you want it back, go to court and prove we're wrong.

Sound reasonable?

==================================

Now before everyone starts jumping up and down, they can't do this with APNs because APNs only apply to schemes.

However this would be the case following your argument that any tax in dispute should sit with HMRC.

[jbryce]

==================================

Now before everyone starts jumping up and down, they can't do this with APNs because APNs only apply to schemes.

However this would be the case following your argument that any tax in dispute should sit with HMRC.

Why not? HMRC have unfinished business with contractor Ltds - a means of avoiding NICs in their view - so new NIC legislation backed up with APNs?