HMRC fall short again

[Loan Ranger]

Doesn't change the fact the HMRC is a shambles.!

That I can't argue with.

And it's not just incompetence, they flout the law!

[Calmbeforethestorm]

I may be wrong but I think Shiner still has an ongoing tax appeal. HMRC can't issue FNs until it's final.

I know of a couple of property developers who had FNs issued off the back of Huitson. They got them withdrawn.

I believe you are correct in Shiner case.

There are is a judicial review and a T1 Tribunal pending.

Doesn't change the fact the HMRC is a shambles.!

[Loan Ranger]

I have a Montpelier case ongoing since 2008. I have had follower notice, issued using the wrong case....so needs to be withdrawn....cant now be reissued as its time barred . HMRC used Huitson case ( IR35) instead of Shiner ( IOM partnerships).Out of four taxpayers in same scheme, dealt with by two different offices...two have their APN and FN withdrawn...but they were issued correctly as they were IOM partnerships, the other two are not withdrawn but should be as they are under IR35. HMRC are clueless.There is no one in charge, no one to refer to, its a total shambles.

Problem is, the LC is an attempt to use a draconian step to sort out a myriad of different schemes, most here are obviously similar as they involve contractors, there are many that do not and a " one size fits all" is not going to work.

Problem is, is how to get that message over to HMRC in time as they have made it a massive gamble , one that most can't afford to take.

I may be wrong but I think Shiner still has an ongoing tax appeal. HMRC can't issue FNs until it's final.

I know of a couple of property developers who had FNs issued off the back of Huitson. They got them withdrawn.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribu...30/TC06568.pdf

My thanks to a contact who pointed this out to me, released today.

It involves a Montpelier DTA scheme user who had FN - APN - surcharge for non payment and whether he had a reasonable excuse.

The legal analysis and logic is convoluted but look at paragraphs 53 and 72.

Para 53 basically says that the taxpayer could have reasonably assumed that following a 7 year silence between the last HMRC letter and the FN, his enquiry was over and HMRC had found nothing wrong and as such could have spent the tax due.

Para 72 says that HMRC's pursuit of Class 4 NIC has placed them in a position where to perfect that charge, they would have to give up income tax.

In short, despite the taxpayer in question attending the hearing by telephone, the Judge needed not much persuading that HMRC had made a complete mess of the process and that their demands for surcharges were little more than a punitive raid on the taxpayer in which HMRC had failed to apply any discretion or indeed understand the law.

This is a FTT decision and may be appealed of course. I'm sure that the HMRC apologists will also say that the agency "had a duty" to defend the appeal. However, when that defence is so comprehensively dismissed by a Judge, how can HMRC justify spending your and my money in such a case?

I suggest that the reason is to keep the pressure on contractors.

However, if they cannot understand the law here, why do we think they do elsewhere?

Answer - we don't.

I have a Montpelier case ongoing since 2008. I have had follower notice, issued using the wrong case....so needs to be withdrawn....cant now be reissued as its time barred . HMRC used Huitson case ( IR35) instead of Shiner ( IOM partnerships).Out of four taxpayers in same scheme, dealt with by two different offices...two have their APN and FN withdrawn...but they were issued correctly as they were IOM partnerships, the other two are not withdrawn but should be as they are under IR35. HMRC are clueless.There is no one in charge, no one to refer to, its a total shambles.

Problem is, the LC is an attempt to use a draconian step to sort out a myriad of different schemes, most here are obviously similar as they involve contractors, there are many that do not and a " one size fits all" is not going to work.

Problem is, is how to get that message over to HMRC in time as they have made it a massive gamble , one that most can't afford to take.

[webberg]

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribu...30/TC06568.pdf

My thanks to a contact who pointed this out to me, released today.

It involves a Montpelier DTA scheme user who had FN - APN - surcharge for non payment and whether he had a reasonable excuse.

The legal analysis and logic is convoluted but look at paragraphs 53 and 72.

Para 53 basically says that the taxpayer could have reasonably assumed that following a 7 year silence between the last HMRC letter and the FN, his enquiry was over and HMRC had found nothing wrong and as such could have spent the tax due.

Para 72 says that HMRC's pursuit of Class 4 NIC has placed them in a position where to perfect that charge, they would have to give up income tax.

In short, despite the taxpayer in question attending the hearing by telephone, the Judge needed not much persuading that HMRC had made a complete mess of the process and that their demands for surcharges were little more than a punitive raid on the taxpayer in which HMRC had failed to apply any discretion or indeed understand the law.

This is a FTT decision and may be appealed of course. I'm sure that the HMRC apologists will also say that the agency "had a duty" to defend the appeal. However, when that defence is so comprehensively dismissed by a Judge, how can HMRC justify spending your and my money in such a case?

I suggest that the reason is to keep the pressure on contractors.

However, if they cannot understand the law here, why do we think they do elsewhere?

Answer - we don't.