Reply to: Budget gives HMRC power to raid bank accounts

[craig1]

So at what point can they take the money?
When they think you owe it to the or when they convince a judge in a fair trial?

If I remember my tax law, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, a HMRC calculation of tax owed is a legally valid notice of debt. The interpretations given to the new policy are that HMRC will be able to go after debtor's money without further notice. If my interpretation of this is correct then in extreme cases HMRC could send you a debt letter by first class post on Monday and then empty your accounts on Tuesday because the deemed delivery of a notice is one day for a first class letter. Have fun hiring a lawyer or accountant to fight the case when you've only £5000 to play with.

[vetran]

Hey vetran, you should sell that 'evoid' to HMRC as a word for 'avoid aggressively', blurring the line between avoid and evade.

I'm actually surprised they haven't used it, they have been trying to blur the line for years.

[Old Greg]

I'll remind you of that when Hector decides you are tax evoiding individual that needs an empty bank account.

Hey vetran, you should sell that 'evoid' to HMRC as a word for 'avoid aggressively', blurring the line between avoid and evade.

[vetran]

Keep cash in safety deposit box then, or some foreign bank where they'll need a court order.

That if you got something to hide.

the point is you don't need to have anything to hide, I suspect it will be a case of withdraw money first and then they lie to cover it up and refuse to pay for their actions.

Having had 3-4 different coding notices in a week, I'm sadly aware HMRC don't do competent.

[AtW]

I'll remind you of that when Hector decides you are tax evoiding individual that needs an empty bank account.

Keep cash in safety deposit box then, or some foreign bank where they'll need a court order.

That if you got something to hide.

[SueEllen]

The first post looks wrong to other interpretations I've found on the web.

Like this one: Yahoo News - Power grab: HMRC can now take money directly from your bank account

If HMRC want to take you to court afterwards and grab the money they claim is owed before they are aware that some judges will disagree with them using other laws i.e. Human Rights Act, so it's in HMRC's interest to claim to have sent letters to you and prove they attempted to phone you, and you didn't reply to HMRC's correspondence before they do the grab. Apparently in France they already have this right.

[vetran]

And some people end up in jail wrongly, sadly that happens, does not mean nobody should go to jail.

I'll remind you of that when Hector decides you are tax evoiding individual that needs an empty bank account.

[AtW]

I predict a series of farces where HMRC bankrupt various people for no reason.

And some people end up in jail wrongly, sadly that happens, does not mean nobody should go to jail.

[AtW]

Nonsense - HMR&C could always charge penalties on those proved to be evading tax.

They just go bankrupt in the end, so revenue gets massive legal bill - double losing out, they got sick of it and anybody in their position would.

[Old Greg]

HM Revenue & Customs: Do it online: tell HMRC about customs or excise fraud, or tax evasion

It has crossed my mind, vetran, but I just couldn't do it. So I just sit grumpily, grumping about on an Internet forum. Sorry about that, everyone.

[vetran]

But a Ltd structure is widely used and defined by the Companies Act 2006. Hard to say that the structure itself is an avoidance measure. Whereas the DOTAS schemes ARE avoidance measures. What you do about the latter is a whole different argument, but the two cannot be equated.

But perhaps I should stop being so grumpy - I had a bad experience where a colleague was the one who got the extension over me purely on price, where she was using what she cheerfully referred to as 'the Jimmy Carr scheme'. I don't like being undercut in this way.

HM Revenue & Customs: Do it online: tell HMRC about customs or excise fraud, or tax evasion

[Old Greg]

This was my worry that they may, without case law or legal precedent, be allowed to equate a simple corporate structure (without any associated offshore or other declared or undeclared tax avoidance scheme) as an avoidance mechanism in itself.

But a Ltd structure is widely used and defined by the Companies Act 2006. Hard to say that the structure itself is an avoidance measure. Whereas the DOTAS schemes ARE avoidance measures. What you do about the latter is a whole different argument, but the two cannot be equated.

But perhaps I should stop being so grumpy - I had a bad experience where a colleague was the one who got the extension over me purely on price, where she was using what she cheerfully referred to as 'the Jimmy Carr scheme'. I don't like being undercut in this way.

[OwlHoot]

This is direct result of actions by tax evaders who pretend to be tax avoiders and use courts to delay the justice for as long as possible.

Nonsense - HMR&C could always charge penalties on those proved to be evading tax.

[MicrosoftBob]

So in other words, he didn't say that and it's just your opinion.

That is just your opinion

[MyUserName]

So at what point can they take the money?
When they think you owe it to the or when they convince a judge in a fair trial?