Reply to: New mass withdrawal of unlawful APNs

[webberg]

For years after (I think) 2011/12, HMRC can withhold repayments where they "believe" there is an amount of tax outstanding, in this case represented by an APN.

You can challenge that position.

[DotasScandal]

It's always the same thing about bringing forward future revenue and making the balance sheet look better.
Always challenge.

[handyandy]

We'll have to see. I suspect that they may keep the money and say they will put it towards what you may owe if they win their day in court.

Interestingly on a previous tax return I was due a few hundred quid back. I queried why it had not been paid and was told it was withheld to offset what they think I owe.

I have had the same issue where they owed me money but because I had an inquiry open there was a 'flag' against me that prevented payment unless the investigating team approved it. I called and had a moan and, after a bit of too and fro, they paid up. This happened for several years until I had a real go and made a formal complaint - since then they pay back what they owe me.

I guess they will deal with cases individually but it's worth calling and challenging them. The other option is to manage your affairs so that you will always owe them something at the end of the year.

[DotasScandal]

Do you get your house back that you sold to pay the unlawful APN?

We all know the answer to that, that's why some of us would rather risk a penalty. If you decide to "do as you're told", well, that's your gamble.

[Whysoserious]

Do you get your house back that you sold to pay the unlawful APN?

[DotasScandal]

Curious about this - if there was a late penalty on an overdue APN and that APN eventually got withdrawn, would the late penalty get withdrawn along with that APN altogether?

If an APN is withdrawn it's as if it never existed. Consequently your penalty never existed either.

[Wibble1]

Curious about this - if there was a late penalty on an overdue APN and that APN eventually got withdrawn, would the late penalty get withdrawn along with that APN altogether?

We'll have to see. I suspect that they may keep the money and say they will put it towards what you may owe if they win their day in court.

Interestingly on a previous tax return I was due a few hundred quid back. I queried why it had not been paid and was told it was withheld to offset what they think I owe.

[9times5]

Curious about this - if there was a late penalty on an overdue APN and that APN eventually got withdrawn, would the late penalty get withdrawn along with that APN altogether?

[mulberryblue]

I was not aware Edge were running a JR and I'd like to make contact with whoever is running it. Especially now I've had hector turn up on my doorstep asking for payment. He's now under the patio but don't tell anyone.

How can I contact the Edge JR group?

Pm The Dandy re Edge group

[Wibble1]

To the best of my knowledge there is no list of schemes notified but not notifiable.

With regard to Edge, I suspect that those running the JR for that scheme are better placed to explain. It may be however that as some people have paid to be part of the JR process, that information is considered to be proprietory?.

I was not aware Edge were running a JR and I'd like to make contact with whoever is running it. Especially now I've had hector turn up on my doorstep asking for payment. He's now under the patio but don't tell anyone.

How can I contact the Edge JR group?

[webberg]

Re another withdrawal of APN due to scheme not being notifiable, is there a list that identifies those that are notifiable of or not?

I challenged HMRC in my representation of APN's issued on these ground and was told the scheme was notifiable - but I don't know how that is proved correct or not. What is it that determines that and what process must have been followed to implement that it was/is notifiable. I'm referring to Edge.

To the best of my knowledge there is no list of schemes notified but not notifiable.

With regard to Edge, I suspect that those running the JR for that scheme are better placed to explain. It may be however that as some people have paid to be part of the JR process, that information is considered to be proprietory?

I'm specultating however that a scheme that was running prior to say 2004 or which started between 2004 and 2006 and remained pretty much unaltered after 2006, but was notified under the DOTAS rules, would be in the sweet spot here. As I said, a very inexpert view.

[Wibble1]

It doesn't take much to confuse bears of little brain. In HMRC's eyes DOTAS Number = fair game regardless of the actuality. As anyone who knew anything escaped HMRC in the redundancies...

Re another withdrawal of APN due to scheme not being notifiable, is there a list that identifies those that are notifiable of or not?

I challenged HMRC in my representation of APN's issued on these ground and was told the scheme was notifiable - but I don't know how that is proved correct or not. What is it that determines that and what process must have been followed to implement that it was/is notifiable. I'm referring to Edge.

[DotasScandal]

But HMRC win 80% of all their cases? Does that now reduce to 79%?

For PR purposes, we believe the figure will remain "80%" ad vitam æternam.
You didn't think these stats ever get "marked to market", did you?
Hector loves round figures like "80%" or "1 billion"

[flamel]

They got it wrong here...

HMRC loses £50m Chelsea Barracks tax appeal to Qatar - BBC News

But HMRC win 80% of all their cases? Does that now reduce to 79%?

[DotasScandal]

They got it wrong here...

HMRC loses £50m Chelsea Barracks tax appeal to Qatar - BBC News

Looks like another case of HMRC trying to extort the party they thought would be easier to "collect" from - ignoring law in the process.
Not unlike their recent attempts at bullying agencies and clients into paying contractors' APNs.
Truly the most formidable criminal organization this country has seen to date.