• 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!

NTRT give HMRC a bloody nose

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

    NTRT give HMRC a bloody nose

    HMRC won the JR but only after doing a massive climbdown.

    This will be the 2nd time they've had to refund APNs for the Montpelier scheme.

    I bet they are well pissed off about this.

    https://www.pumptax.com/wp-content/u...al-27.7.18.pdf

    Dear [X]

    We refer to the Follower Notices dated [insert] in respect of tax years [insert] (“the FNs”) and to the accelerated Payment Notices dated [insert] in respect of tax years [insert] (“the APNs”).

    During the course of the judicial review application R (Broomfield & Others) v HMRC (CO/2656/2017) (“Broomfield”) in which you are a claimant, HMRC have considered and clarified how the Follower Notice regime should operate where a taxpayer has two arguments against tax being payable but only one would be denied by the application of the reasoning in a previous judicial ruling.

    In light of this, HMRC confirm that they will not assess a penalty under section 208 Finance Act 2014 in respect of the FNs insofar as you take the following action (“the Required Action”) within the time limit set out below.

    (1) Withdraw any argument in your appeal(s) before the First-tier Tribunal in which you seek to challenge the correctness of Huitson v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 448 and/or its application to your facts.

    (2) Agree in writing with HMRC that you will not seek to re-introduce such arguments in the First-tier Tribunal or any other tribunal or court.

    The time limit here is the end of 45 days beginning with the day on which the High Court (Lewis J) hands down judgment in Broomfield.

    Insofar as a penalty has already been assessed on you, HMRC will not seek to enforce the penalty assessment before the expiry of the time limit set out above and to the extent that you take the Required Action within that time limit will withdraw the penalty assessment and refund any part of the penalty that you have paid to HMRC.

    Further, to the extent that you take the Required Action within the time limit, HMRC will refund any amounts paid to HMRC pursuant to the APNs and, if applicable, will not seek the enforce the APNs further.
    Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.

    #2
    Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
    HMRC won the JR but only after doing a massive climbdown.

    This will be the 2nd time they've had to refund APNs for the Montpelier scheme.

    I bet they are well pissed off about this.

    https://www.pumptax.com/wp-content/u...al-27.7.18.pdf

    Dear [X]

    We refer to the Follower Notices dated [insert] in respect of tax years [insert] (“the FNs”) and to the accelerated Payment Notices dated [insert] in respect of tax years [insert] (“the APNs”).

    During the course of the judicial review application R (Broomfield & Others) v HMRC (CO/2656/2017) (“Broomfield”) in which you are a claimant, HMRC have considered and clarified how the Follower Notice regime should operate where a taxpayer has two arguments against tax being payable but only one would be denied by the application of the reasoning in a previous judicial ruling.

    In light of this, HMRC confirm that they will not assess a penalty under section 208 Finance Act 2014 in respect of the FNs insofar as you take the following action (“the Required Action”) within the time limit set out below.

    (1) Withdraw any argument in your appeal(s) before the First-tier Tribunal in which you seek to challenge the correctness of Huitson v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 448 and/or its application to your facts.

    (2) Agree in writing with HMRC that you will not seek to re-introduce such arguments in the First-tier Tribunal or any other tribunal or court.

    The time limit here is the end of 45 days beginning with the day on which the High Court (Lewis J) hands down judgment in Broomfield.

    Insofar as a penalty has already been assessed on you, HMRC will not seek to enforce the penalty assessment before the expiry of the time limit set out above and to the extent that you take the Required Action within that time limit will withdraw the penalty assessment and refund any part of the penalty that you have paid to HMRC.

    Further, to the extent that you take the Required Action within the time limit, HMRC will refund any amounts paid to HMRC pursuant to the APNs and, if applicable, will not seek the enforce the APNs further.
    Looks like HMRC only lost on 2 individuals where a procedural issue and change of address were involved....hardly a substantial loss for them as it was a multiple case.

    The guts of the issue....Huitson still stands firm it seems.

    Unless I read it wrong.

    Comment


      #3
      The JR forced HMRC to change the way they interpret the FN legislation.

      NTRT can now continue their appeal to the FTTT without risking 50% penalties, and they get their APNs refunded.

      I wouldn't mind being in that position.
      Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Calmbeforethestorm View Post
        Looks like HMRC only lost on 2 individuals where a procedural issue and change of address were involved....hardly a substantial loss for them as it was a multiple case.

        The guts of the issue....Huitson still stands firm it seems.

        Unless I read it wrong.
        In fact HMRC climbed down just before the hearing and conceded almost everything. So the "loss" is on irrelevant points.

        In return for no penalties from HMRC, NTRT are forced to drop Huitson. Which is already lost anyway. So NTRT win everything.

        Comment


          #5
          So onwards for NTRT to the FTTT. Those who relied on Huitson only cannot benefit from this.

          Will HMRC concede just before the FTTT as they did just before the JR? Either way, HMRC are going to get a good deal worse treatment - their forthcoming loss will be devastating for them.

          Comment


            #6
            I obviously welcome the NTRT win and again deplore the time and cost that HMRC has deliberately caused them to incur by use of tactics that are designed to rob that group of its cohesion.

            As can be seen from the submission to TSC inquiry by the CIOT, it is a demonstrable fact that HMRC would rather litigate than give in, even where there is no realistic chance of winning. This is not only contrary to common sense, but also is precisely what the LSS was there to prevent. HMRC pays lip service to all the boundaries put up by Parliament and it's good to see them for once being forced to admit it.

            It is to be hoped that HMRC has now run out of stalling tactics and will allow the substantive issues behind the litigation to be heard. I fear that may not be the case, but even if it is, I fear that a decision will be stalled, by hook or by crook, until after April 2019.

            It pays HMRC to keep contractors unbalanced and uncertain and if what we hear about private sector reform of IR35 arriving in April 2019 is correct, then this will help them. HMRC's denial of the effects of the public sector reform does not bode well for achieving any certainty soon.
            Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

            (No, me neither).

            Comment


              #7
              Who cares when the substantive issues can be heard? Nothing is binding on HMRC until the UTTT decision is out.

              By then HMRC will have retrospectively changed the rules again.

              Comment


                #8
                DTA scheme - not Loan?

                Originally posted by webberg View Post
                It is to be hoped that HMRC has now run out of stalling tactics and will allow the substantive issues behind the litigation to be heard. I fear that may not be the case, but even if it is, I fear that a decision will be stalled, by hook or by crook, until after April 2019.
                In this case though this was the DTA scheme - not a loan arrangement so a delay till 2019 doesn't help them does it?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by QUODM View Post
                  In this case though this was the DTA scheme - not a loan arrangement so a delay till 2019 doesn't help them does it?
                  The case against DTA is lost. That is not what NTRT are fighting.

                  The points NTRT are fighting will have serious affects on the loan scheme. HMRC will try to delay a decision at UTTT as long as possible - at that point it becomes binding and they will lose their loan scheme arguments(which were incredibly weak to begin with).

                  HMRC have messed up big time.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by GammaMadrid View Post
                    The case against DTA is lost. That is not what NTRT are fighting.

                    The points NTRT are fighting will have serious affects on the loan scheme. HMRC will try to delay a decision at UTTT as long as possible - at that point it becomes binding and they will lose their loan scheme arguments(which were incredibly weak to begin with).

                    HMRC have messed up big time.
                    Being pedantic.

                    A UTTT decision is not necessarily binding.

                    My guess is that even if HMRC lose at UTT then they will appeal to CoA and the Supreme Court, precisely because they cannot afford to lose.

                    Sadly, even if they lose (and I think they will), and do not collect the money that they have promised spreadsheet Phil and also lose the loan charge to a JR, the architects of the plan in HMRC will brush off the millions in wasted money and damage to reputation and will still collect the nice pension and the gong in due course.
                    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

                    (No, me neither).

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X