Reply to: Ok, So where is HMRC vulnerable

[MyxALot]

They are v annoyed about the latest newspaper articles and the EDM in particular. Bare in mind, they spent a lot of time themselves carefully managing the perception of tax avoidance purely so they can do this.

That shows their arrogance. Did they really think they could shaft 100,000 workers (inc. low-paid NHS agency staff) and not expect there to be a backlash?!

And it's only going to get worse for them.

[phil@pmtc]

I've said this before.



EDMs, petitions, writing to your MP. Total utter fecking waste of time. Been there, got that useless t-shirt.
.

I wouldn't say its useless, I can absolutely without doubt state that HMRC are currently much more concerned about the lobbying to turn public perception than they are about any technical challenge to the LC on which they remain worryingly confident. They are v annoyed about the latest newspaper articles and the EDM in particular. Bare in mind, they spent a lot of time themselves carefully managing the perception of tax avoidance purely so they can do this.
Unfortunately I cant evidence exactly how I know as id be dropping a contact right in a big mess but they are most definitely in a position of being ITK.
Of course, even if the whole world ends up agreeing that the loan charge is scandalous, it doesn't mean HMRC have to give the money back so I guess in that respect I do agree.

I do agree a 10m fighting fund to select the best legal team available would also be a huge help!

[webberg]

I have heard that one before and I was amazed. Yet it seems to be true!

HMRC seem to be able to determine what the right amount of tax is and who pays it. Look at the recent HMRC-Rangers case. HMRC "won" and the "loans" were not "loans". The company owed the tax. However the company is in liquidation. They are trying to move the tax owe to the "beneficiaries".

Tax can be very taxing!

That is just not true.

Lord Hodge decided that the sum arising from the employer (Rangers) to the employee became taxable and subject to PAYE at the point it arose.

That was before the money was subsequently sent to a trust who loaned it the employer.

In theory therefore the money paid to the trust was the employees money which was then loaned back to them.

So the loans are loans.

[webberg]

At some point you may need one to challenge the LC, unless you're counting on having things done and dusted before anyone has to pay it (31 Jan 2020).

We may need such a fund in due course but probably not to challenge the LC.

I'm not sure what grounds there might be for that? Human rights - almost no chance of winning that one? Unlawful exercise of a legal power by HMRC - probably much the same?

We do have grounds for believing that in many instances, the charge should not apply but unless we are forced to by clients who wish to pay for a Judicial Review on the above (+ other grounds), our funds will be used for a legal challenge that we think has more legs.

[GreenMirror]

HMRC have no duty of care (deliberately) so this isn't a lever, or even a vague possibility. Paying the right tax remains your problem.

I have heard that one before and I was amazed. Yet it seems to be true!

HMRC seem to be able to determine what the right amount of tax is and who pays it. Look at the recent HMRC-Rangers case. HMRC "won" and the "loans" were not "loans". The company owed the tax. However the company is in liquidation. They are trying to move the tax owe to the "beneficiaries".

Tax can be very taxing!

Regarding alienating the IT community, I think the public sector changes moving to private sector will alienate quite a few. Though, allegedly, HMRC ignored the public sector changes anyway. And I bet most would take any money offered whether it was offered by HMRC or any other organization. These changes will hit QDOS and IPSE quite hard so it will be interesting to see how they respond.

[Loan Ranger]

We don't have any fighting fund because that is not what we're doing!

We are funded for the exercise we advertise and which our clients have bought into.

See above for a longer explanation.

At some point you may need one to challenge the LC, unless you're counting on having things done and dusted before anyone has to pay it (31 Jan 2020).

[webberg]

I doubt BG has a £1m fighting fund let alone £10m.

Of course, money itself is no guarantee of succeeding but it helps.

We don't have any fighting fund because that is not what we're doing!

We are funded for the exercise we advertise and which our clients have bought into.

See above for a longer explanation.

[cojak]

I stand corrected.

[webberg]

BG is not fighting, BG is settling.

If I might correct that please.

We are looking to settle but on our terms and not HMRC's.

You are though correct in saying that we did not set out to litigate the position, preferring negotiation, but there are elements within the strategy that may in due course go to litigation.

We are not though geared to be a mass protest group and never have been. We take such actions as benefit our clients and clearly if that benefits the wider community, all well and good.

If there are actions that the wider community wishes to take, then as said above, it needs funding and it would be unreasonable to expect the relatively low numbers in Big Group to fund that.

I would hesitate in offering to coordinate such action outside our own clients because:

1. It takes a lot of time (which I don't have)
2. It requires a lot of infrastructure (which we do have)
3. It requires a full time coordinator (which could be hired)
4. It requires funding
5. It is likely to have a number of legal/technical (GDPR?) issues that need solving

Whilst some may decry the effort with MPs etc, to be blunt, unless you organise your own group or join a group and become active in pushing your agenda, such efforts are perhaps the best that can be achieved.

[malvolio]

(1) is irrelevant. HMRC have no duty of care (deliberately) so this isn't a lever, or even a vague possibility. Paying the right tax remains your problem.

(2) Yes they have. Deep pockets and the ability to re-allocate people as necessary and if necessary will blow a hole that argument.

(3) They may. 95% of the remaining IT community won't care less and will take the work offered. Or it gets outsourced to E&Y again.

(4) is of course a major concern. However I suspect it will not change things sufficiently to make a difference.

Any others? Personally no, but someone may have...

[foobar]

Many of you are understandably throwing in the towel, but there are some very obvious areas where HMRC is vulnerable.

1) Legal
HMRC and the lawmakers have overturned a long established principle that taxpayers should ultimately have finality over their affairs, hence the four, six and twenty year rules. There will be legal challenges on this one, particularly where years are never closed. If they lose this one in the courts it will be very messy to unwind.

2) Infrastructure
Based on current readings, I don't think they have the infrastructure to manage this one. What are the implications??

3) IT Resource
If they alienate the IT community enough, there is the very real possibility that contractors and all permanent staff will refuse to work there.

4) Human Impact.
I know of one person who is on the edge of taking his life as a result of HMRC's behaviour. Sadly, I don't think he is unique.

Any more...

They are only sensitive to public opinion (votes). You have a massive tanker to turn around but as Archimedes knew it can be done with a long enough lever and the right fulcrum point.

[Loan Ranger]

I doubt BG has a £1m fighting fund let alone £10m.

Of course, money itself is no guarantee of succeeding but it helps.

[cojak]

Isn't that what BG are doing?

BG is not fighting, BG is settling.

[GreenMirror]

I've said this before.

You need to throw big money at it. Hire a team of kick ass lawyers.

EDMs, petitions, writing to your MP. Total utter fecking waste of time. Been there, got that useless t-shirt.

If you want to make HMRC quiver, have £10m in a fighting fund.

Isn't that what BG are doing?

[Loan Ranger]

I've said this before.

You need to throw big money at it. Hire a team of kick ass lawyers.

EDMs, petitions, writing to your MP. Total utter fecking waste of time. Been there, got that useless t-shirt.

If you want to make HMRC quiver, have £10m in a fighting fund.