Representing yourself at an FTTT hearing

[Guy Incognito]

T242 - Making an appeal - First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber (04.18) (publishing.service.gov.uk)

[Guy Incognito]

I am reading through all of the CHRISTIANUYI cases - I feel like that innocent guy in the prison library.

If you want to use HMRC Explanatory notes in your argument, you can use this from Christianuyi Ltd & Ors v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Employment income) [2016] UKFTT 272 (TC) (21 April 2016) (bailii.org)

295. It is well-established that it is permissible to have recourse to Explanatory Notes as an aid to the construction of a statute. In WestminsterCityCouncil v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38 Lord Steyn said at [5]:

“Insofar as the Explanatory Notes cast light on the objective setting or contextual scene of the statute, and the mischief at which it is aimed, such materials are therefore always admissible aids to construction.”[8]

[GregRickshaw]

I am reading through all of the CHRISTIANUYI cases - I feel like that innocent guy in the prison library.

If you want to use HMRC Explanatory notes in your argument, you can use this from Christianuyi Ltd & Ors v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Employment income) [2016] UKFTT 272 (TC) (21 April 2016) (bailii.org)

295. It is well-established that it is permissible to have recourse to Explanatory Notes as an aid to the construction of a statute. In WestminsterCityCouncil v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38 Lord Steyn said at [5]:

“Insofar as the Explanatory Notes cast light on the objective setting or contextual scene of the statute, and the mischief at which it is aimed, such materials are therefore always admissible aids to construction.”[8]

Reading those makes you realise the poor sods caught up in it were just trying to do a decent days work, not tax dodgers or avoiders by aggressive choice. Yes they were hopelessly naive through lack of understanding but there was never any malice or avoidance by choice. They proved through witness statements they were just a business getting on with the day. So sad reading this and it does make you realise the CK and Boox clients have zero chance of winning.

Yes the MSCP seems a slam dunk but the individuals really do not deserve this fate, I suspect like the CK and Boox clients they weren't exactly living in clover.

HMRC should not be going after individuals in these cases, it's the same in my mind as the loan providers the scheme providers, they prey on the weakness and ignorance (no defence I know before I get shouted down) but this/that was all wrong. I doubt the providers got even as much as a tap on the wrist.

Sad times

Would be interesting to find out if those companies found 'guilty' got doubled taxed though.

[eek]

It’s the same as the IRS, HMRC are happy to investigate low paid workers as it’s mostly easy wins because they don’t know how to respond.

[Guy Incognito]

Would be interesting to find out if those companies found 'guilty' got doubled taxed though.

I very strongly suspect that they were all skint and CBS had to pay.