S684 Letters from HMRC

[Chevalier]

Mr Gordon (barrister) just raised a good point on twitter. Discovery assessments are supposed to be a last resort when the information was not available at the time of the enquiry window. In LC cases that clearly isn't the case.

For the lucky few I suspect- yes.

Some will have their original enquiries outstanding, others may not have even filed self assessments, and others HMRC may have genuinely not had the loan information at the right time.

it’s a bit of lottery tbh

[DealorNoDeal]

Good question, and Yes, its HMRC self provided discretion on how (and especially where) it can and should be applied that's under question. The legislation as it stands reads woolly and seems dated to ourselves.

Which is a bit ironic given that ITEPA 2003 was a tax law rewrite project meant to make legislation clearer and simpler.

Unfortunately, this Finance Bill doesn't appear to have received detailed scrutiny by Parliament like a normal Budget Finance Bill would, so it's probably not even possible for the courts to refer back to the "intention of Parliament" to help clarify the legislation. The explanatory notes for S684 are very thin, and don't even mention 7A:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...4/11/1/3/2/1/1

Out of interest, do you know if there was predecessor legislation for S684(7A)(b) prior to 2003?

[Saleos]

How has Eek not been banned for consistently promoting WTT on here?!

Worth saying that WTT are providing slightly different advice

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/graha...ium=member_ios

boils down to it’s not as easy as just sending a letter

[northernladuk]

How has Eek not been banned for consistently promoting WTT on here?!

Because there is a difference from blatent promoting for sales and financial gain or mentioning it as the best solution given the circumstance. Everytime anyone asks for a decent umbrella we suggest Clarity. Is that consistently promoting or giving the best answer to the people that need it?

[NotAllThere]

How has Eek not been banned for consistently promoting WTT on here?!

Since you were last logged in in April 2021, how would you know?

Also, little note: calling for a ban is in itself grounds for a ban.

[eek]

How has Eek not been banned for consistently promoting WTT on here?!

Because I don't really recommend WTT - I list them when someone asks because there are zero other options I would trust / recommend - my problem is I need to suggest somewhere to turn so I suggest WTT if it's appropriate and you should note I've not said WTT on the Felicitas thread because it's not really needed there - opening the letters to ensure it's not a Statutory Demand and telling them to politely sod off (if you care enough to respond) is enough there.

And while they may no longer post on here various people at WTT post way more on LinkedIn than other similar firms do - so as they keep me up to date on such things they remain in my thoughts.

now I do wonder how much of this is sour grapes because you fail on my first hurdle by attempting to profiteer from a mess you helped create

[eek]

Because there is a difference from blatent promoting for sales and financial gain or mentioning it as the best solution given the circumstance. Everytime anyone asks for a decent umbrella we suggest Clarity. Is that consistently promoting or giving the best answer to the people that need it?

Also I don't get any financial gain from WTT when I suggest asking them. Likewise when we suggest Clarity it's because they are good and trustworthy. We aren't paid to recommend them.

[DealorNoDeal]

Personally, I am somewhat dubious about all these advisors, lawyers etc. It all has a feel of ambulance chasing, preying on desperate folk. I hope people aren't paying too much money to them because that could be just throwing good money after bad. I also hope people aren't being peddled false hope.

I'll fall off my chair if anything good comes of these group/class actions. That's if I haven't already fallen off my perch by the time they reach the very end.

[eek]

Personally, I am somewhat dubious about all these advisors, lawyers etc. It all has a feel of ambulance chasing, preying on desperate folk. I hope people aren't paying too much money to them because that could be just throwing good money after bad. I also hope people aren't being peddled false hope.

I'll fall off my chair if anything good comes of these group/class actions. That's if I haven't fallen off my perch by the time they reach the very end.

My one comment regarding advisors is that given how HMRC works if you need to talk or deal with HMRC using someone with experience in dealing with HMRC makes sense even if you wish to settle because merely accidently saying something the wrong way can provide HMRC with whole new areas to seek money from you.

So while I get your viewpoint for many people (as you will have witnessed in virtually every thread in this forum) the last thing many people should be doing is talking to HMRC directly.

[GregRickshaw]

Using a specialist(s) who are ex HMRC and still in touch with colleagues at HMRC really helps.

I don't totally agree about the eggshells when talking to HMRC directly sometimes it's worth it.

I think the problem is the people you may end up talking to are not the inspectors, so the person on the end of the phone can misrepresent/misinterpret/mis quote/mis spell () not pass messages on etc.,

With the greatest respect to those on the end of the phone they can sometimes be very junior (in age and experience).