• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Sympathy for the Devil

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ric_77
    replied
    Originally posted by phil@dswtres View Post
    Ill PM you my email address (and link to website so you can see who we are)

    Phil
    Phil would you be able to pm the same details also please. Tried pm ing you but for some reason its now allowing it.
    Last edited by ric_77; 9 February 2018, 13:41. Reason: error

    Leave a comment:


  • bandemelbs
    replied
    Apologies if this question is buried somewhere in this thread. Will there not be an onus on HMRC to prove that they have attempted to collect whatever tax they believe is owing from Employers (as per the Rangers case) before they start pursuing individuals / contractors? If so, how is this likely to work in reality?

    Leave a comment:


  • phil@pmtc
    replied
    Originally posted by CanPayButWouldRatherNot View Post
    Phil,
    Thanks for confirmation that the FNs/APNs/LoR rejection letters are all deemed to be legal documents. Is there any regulation that I can use to support that claim?

    Given you stated that errors within those documents might render them invalid can I PM or email your work email address?

    Regards
    CPBWRN
    Ill PM you my email address (and link to website so you can see who we are)

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • CanPayButWouldRatherNot
    replied
    Originally posted by phil@dswtres View Post
    Yes, as it happens my last post at HMRC was leading that team which produced the rejection letters. I can confirm errors can and indeed have meant that they were rendered invalid. Obv it depends on the error.
    Phil,
    Thanks for confirmation that the FNs/APNs/LoR rejection letters are all deemed to be legal documents. Is there any regulation that I can use to support that claim?

    Given you stated that errors within those documents might render them invalid can I PM or email your work email address?

    Regards
    CPBWRN

    Leave a comment:


  • scottishamerican
    replied
    US Based 2019 Loan Charge

    I live in the US and have done so for 5 years, and am a perm resident here.

    I contracted through Bedouin for 1 year in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 (spanning both tax years).

    I have a very small UK income from a property I own, which actually translates to a loss for tax purposes. This has built year on year and I have been told should I ever move back to the US this amount would reduce my tax bill on earnings in my first year.

    How will the 2019 loan charge affect me? With zero income, will the first X GBP just burn my personal allowance?

    Are they going to tax me as a resident but not give me a personal allowance as one?

    My amount owed is small, around 10k GBP, and easily payable, I just feel all of this is morally wrong. I already have 6k GBP set aside as a Certificate of Deposit to stop the interest rising too much.

    Leave a comment:


  • phil@pmtc
    replied
    Originally posted by CanPayButWouldRatherNot View Post
    Phil et al ...

    Can you confirm if an FN, APN and subsequent LoR rejection letter from HMRC Solicitors Office are classified as legal documents.

    If so then can you confirm if errors on any of those documents could render them invalid
    Yes, as it happens my last post at HMRC was leading that team which produced the rejection letters. I can confirm errors can and indeed have meant that they were rendered invalid. Obv it depends on the error.

    Leave a comment:


  • CanPayButWouldRatherNot
    replied
    Question for ex-HMRC folks

    Phil et al ...

    Can you confirm if an FN, APN and subsequent LoR rejection letter from HMRC Solicitors Office are classified as legal documents.

    If so then can you confirm if errors on any of those documents could render them invalid

    Leave a comment:


  • BrownOwl
    replied
    Originally posted by phil@dswtres View Post
    Hi, There was not tbh, but my thoughts are that if you sign the settlement then any future decision is irrelevant.
    Hi Phil,

    Thanks for the response.

    I wonder how confident HMRC are in the 2019 legilsation if they won't allow refunds if it is challenged somehow? It wouldn't be much risk to add a clause if it's the supposed dead cert for them. Very odd, maybe they aren't as certain as they want us to think.

    The settlement terms presumably state which legislation HMRC would use to tax me if I didn't settle, so can that legislation be challenged in future?

    The last letters I had from HMRC mentioned transfer of assets aboard so presumably HMRC settlement terms outline their arguments on how it applies?

    Do the settlement terms say I'll never be liable for future tax under any circumstance?

    Saying I'm not liable for the 2019 legislation specifically isn't covering everything as they could introduce another retrospective tax in 2020 to grab some more. I've effectively admitted to them I'm a tax avoider and there open to any future retrospective taxes they can think of.

    The original 2015 settlement opportunity has fallen foul of this where some people settled and could now be liable for the 2019 legislation in some years.

    What's in the settlement terms to stop them doing this again?

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Invisiblehand View Post
    So in essence you're not taking the CLSO2 settlement and seeking to argue against certain aspects of its conclusions and with weight of numbers comes a better chance of being listened to?
    We're not "seeking to argue against certain aspects of its conclusions".

    Again.

    The CLSO is outside statute and does not comply with either the law or the Supreme Court decision. It is a concession offered by HMRC. There is consequently nothing to argue against. I could knock myself out trying to persuade HMRC to try to make the CLSO terms even vaguely compliant but it would be a waste if time. They have set out their stall and they're asking you to pay them based on an analysis that cannot be supported in law or Court. They are stubbornly clinging to their position because they know that the alternative (litigate or some other resolution) is hard yards. They know that some people have been fighting this for a decade and are tired and depressed. They know that they have caused a lot of this but they just don't care except to the extent that they want their political masters not to realise it. If this remains deniable at MP level, HMRC is protected.

    So we do not "argue against" the CLSO terms because it's a pointless argument.

    We have a different plan based on law and Court decisions.

    Leave a comment:


  • phil@pmtc
    replied
    Originally posted by Loan Ranger View Post
    I heard of one person, who took corrective action 9 months ago, recently getting the NICs back.

    It's definitely worth writing and demanding it back.
    I agree with the above sentence. Well worth writing in but still, prob worth calling me for the chat so I can explain also.
    PS - I didn't receive a PM(?)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X