You MUST do this

[webberg]

https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...isputes-17-19/

This is an opportunity to have your say.

If it results in changes to past enquiries (unlikely), that's a major win.

If it results in changes in the future, a minor win.

If it results in "more of the same", then it might be cathartic.

[ChimpMaster]

For those of us who are beyond the 6 year enquiry window but still caught up within the theatre that is 2019 LC, I think this is one way to say something. I very much doubt it'll make a difference, but that's where we're at.

Is there a template response we can/should use?

[phil@pmtc]

For those of us who are beyond the 6 year enquiry window but still caught up within the theatre that is 2019 LC, I think this is one way to say something. I very much doubt it'll make a difference, but that's where we're at.

Is there a template response we can/should use?

My thinking is that we should avoid using template response as could weaken the argument if looks like everyone has just sent in something that’s been doing the rounds.

[NotAllThere]

My thinking is that we should avoid using template response as could weaken the argument if looks like everyone has just sent in something that’s been doing the rounds.

This is certainly the case, but some guidance on format, length etc. might be useful from someone who has had involvement in these before. Even the form of address to use!

[regron]

This is certainly the case, but some guidance on format, length etc. might be useful from someone who has had involvement in these before. Even the form of address to use!

Try here:

https://www.parliament.uk/get-involv...witness-guide/

[webberg]

Templates get put into a generic pile and are ignored.

The witness guide is useful.

Basically you need to:

Explain who you are
Explain why you are replying
Give some context
Tell your experience
Suggest how that experience could and should have been

For example:

I am Joe Contractor and have been subject to a number of HMRC enquiries between 2010 and 2013.

In dealing with those enquiries, I have encountered a number of difficulties with HMRC which I consider this committee should be aware of.

I was not aware in 2010 that HMRC would, in 2013, declare that the arrangements I used were tax avoidance. This news was not made clear to me by HMRC until xx/xx/13.

Upon becoming aware, I immediately ceased using the arrangement. I advised HMRC of this fact and sought from them details of their analysis of why the arrangement was considered to be avoidance. I have not been able to obtain from HMRC any such reasoned position. Instead I have been subjected to a regime designed to extract money from me on grounds that are contested and do not have any legal sanction. Now I face the prospect of retrospective law, again on disputed grounds.

In my experience, HMRC case officers are not prepared to take into account the fact that HMRC was aware of their "avoidance" analysis, but allowed the schemes to continue to be sold; were slow to make enquiries; remain unable to explain the "avoidance"; are denying that the Rangers Supreme Court case means that the primary tax liability lies with employer.

The conclusion is that the case officer had arrived at a conclusion as to the tax position, prior to making enquiries and was instructed to ignore all answers given that did not meet the pre prepared script and analysis that they have seen, and I have not.

Such wilful abuse of the enquiry process is designed to drive maximum revenue and minimum trust.

HMRC should be instructed to collects facts, analyse them, provide that analysis to each impacted taxpayer and in the event of a dispute, to put on hold all enquiries and instead advance a Tribunal case as quickly as possible. Such a transparent and open approach would remove many of the difficulties.