- HMRC acknowledge their responsibility for the payment of compensation
when they get it wrong. We anticipate that the final compensation
payment will exceed £20,000! Here
is HMRC's most recent letter on the matter.
- HMRC represented at Tribunal at Bedford Square London by their
Senior Advocate, ALL points in dispute were won by us!!
- Yet again, (it is now pretty much routine) HMRC withdraws from
the challenge of our appeal, (on this occasion an important CIS
issue relating to the employment of subcontractors! Wherever,
from the Redknapp £20 Million Trial through to "smaller"
cases, HMRC's bully boy tactics will NOT succeed! The
attached whingeing capitulation by HMRC speaks for itself, the
reader may consider.
- The Investigation related to information passed to HMRC in respect
of substantial cash sums found in a safety deposit box seized
in a bank raid by the Metropolitan Police in 2008. The investigation
has been concluded without adjustment in relation to cash discovered.
PAYE penalties levied concurrently, but separately, have been
cancelled, and settled under S54 TMA 1970.
- Our client had been the subject a fraud which had cost him a
very substantial amount of money. and the criminal investigation
by the Metropolitan Police closed without prosecution. Following
intervention by us and the presentation of fresh evidence the
case has now been reopened by the Metropolitan Police. Additionally
we will be assisting the client ongoing to achieve recovery of
the defrauded funds!
- The case was one where HMRC had raised penalties for late returns
in respect of nine consecutive periods totalling £27,000.
They refused in review to reduce these, but following application
to Tribunal by us they 'further reviewed' the case, cancelled
all but one of the penalties and reduced the one remaining from
£8,000 to £5,000. No reason was given for their decision.
- For the third time in just a couple of weeks, following notification
of our involvement in a relatively serious case, HMRC has chosen
to discontinue the case and close it down without adjustment
- The case involved backwards extrapolation by HMRC with which
we were content in principle. HMRC sought to almost double a previously
verbally agreed figure for this because of legal technicalities
which they sought to bring to bear. At Tribunal the were required
to accept the previously agreed figures on the basis that contracts
can be written, spoken of inferred, and a verbal agreement was
as binding on HMRC as a written one would have been.
- Excise Duty assessment on decanted imported fuel.
Following robust arguments by us, HMRC appealed the case and
withdrew the assessments without the need for us to approach
Tribunal.
- A follow up to a recent successful closure of a case without
adjustment is that following forceful follow up action by us,
HMRC have agreed to pay compensation of some £15,000
to the client to represent reimbursement of all our fees and
an element of "personal" compensation for suffering
and distress. We are not satisfied with the amount of personal
compensation awarded and are pursuing a significantly more substantial
figure.
- Investigation into Self Assessment Tax Return for a Chinese
Restaurant.
Case closed with only minor adjustments.
- HMRC have recently closed a second case "about which they
still have concerns, but which they do not propose to take further".
They have given no further explanation in respect of either and
the only logical conclusion is that they do not wish to further
argue with us.
- HMRC Investigation into the level of turnover declared.
Enquiry closed without adjustment. Here is the direct quote from
HMRC's letter:
"Whilst I still have major concerns with regard to the
level of turnover declared I have taken
all available factors into consideration. On this basis I propose:
on this occasion only, and on
a without prejudice basis, to close the enquiry into the 2008/09
tax return, with no
adjustment."
- Business Renovation Allowance claim (CA545100 Onwards)
Claim agreed 100% following our intervention, previously disallowed.
- HMRC Duty "Due" on Decanted Fuel (Cross Channel
Transport)
HMRC acknowledge its failure to comply with procedure required
by legislation and cancel assessment completely. Client describes
us as "saints".
- HMRC Code of Practice 9 (COP9) Investigation into sales suppression
HMRC Original risk £1M + interest and penalties,
Final Settlement £100k (including interest and penalties)
(By instalments over 5 years!) Client is ecstatic.
- HMRC Code of Practice 9 (COP9) Investigation Ltd Company
Liability claimed attributable to Director
£100k claimed; no evidence available to HMRC to substantiate
director's liability, nominal settlement of £10k proposed,
outcome pending but agreement expected.
- Following a three year campaign by HMRC against a 74 year old
lady hairdresser, who operated with just one stylist with an alleged
liability that would make her liable to Higher Rate Tax we were
approached. We arranged for the matter to be listed for appeal
at Tribunal and HMRC promptly declined to offer evidence, withdrew
from the appeal which was determined in the client's favour. We
are currently pursuing a claim for compensation of £25,000
via the client's MP we have also prepared a paper highlighting
faults within HMRC's Compliance System which the MP has passed
to Treasury Ministers where it is currently being considered.
- Following Mansworth v Jelly (2003) (Mansworth v Jelley [2002]
EWCA Civ 1829) . The client relief claimed for Capital losses
incurred in respect of the disposal of shares acquired on the
exercise of share options in respect of 1997/98 - 1999/00. The
claim was disallowed on the 10 June 2010 basis of HMRC's "current
understanding" of the law following the Mansworth v Jelly
decision. We arranged for the matter to be listed for appeal at
Tribunal and HMRC promptly declined to offer evidence, withdrew
from the appeal which was determined in the client's favour.
- HMRC had refused to accept a late appeal against assessments
issued some 2 years previously because there were inadequate grounds.
The remit of the Tribunal in considering these matters if different
from the rigid guidelines by which HMRC is bound, and are focused
on the need to satisfy the interests of equity. We lodged an appeal
with than Tribunal Service on the grounds that the interests of
equity would not be served if the client was required to pay more
tax than was actually due because of the technicality of not having
appealed in time. The appeal was allowed and the clients affairs
have since been satisfactorily closed.
- Chapter 9 ITEPA Managed Service Companies. Following our intervention
HMRC has chosen not to pursue the Director personally for the
claimed liability and closed the file. We assume that they will
be taking this course of action in respect of all such cases.
- Extra Statutory Concession (ESC) A19 "allows" HMRC
not to collect tax in certain cases. The arrears related to 2005/06
- 2008/09 and HMRC bases their demands on historical assessments.
We challenged the liability and as they were unable to demonstrate
it satisfactorily chose not to collect the alleged arrears. Client
wrote to us: "Many thanks for your help & assistance.
You have come up trumps & got an amazing result! At this end,
you have made two old people very happy."
- HMRC requires definitive evidence of situations rather than
apply the balance of probabilities. The client ran a garage business
and had employed his daughter part time to maintain his records.
There was no cash book evidence of wages paid and they had been
disallowed. We were able to demonstrate to Tribunal that the taxpayer
was illiterate and could not have maintained his own records,
that that his daughter had been a university accountancy student
at the time. This coupled with well presented evidence convinced
the Tribunal that the claim was genuine and the expenses were
allowed.
- We disagreed with the methodology applied by HMRC in calculating
extrapolation. The Tribunal accepted arguments by us leading to
a substantial reduction in the extrapolated figures.
- Incapacity Benefit had been disallowed* after the claimant had
completed a questionnaire and been "examined" by a medical
board. No medical evidence from the individual's medical caperers
had been considered, or even obtained. The subject suffered from
Bi Polar Disorder a depressive condition just one symptom of which
is that her view of her circumstances varied from time to time,
from day to day or even minute by minute. We argued that it was
completely unacceptable for her condition to be assessed on evidence
presented by her alone, which, by definition, must be unreliable.
The Tribunal agreed and allowed the benefit without even the need
for attendance at the hearing.
- Substantial investigation into restaurant closed completely
on our terms, including acceptance of our issues relating to private
use adjustments which were a significant feature of this particular
case.
- Cancellation of 2nd tier penalty for non completion of Return.
Footnote; Tax Chamber, Tribunal Service
It is difficult to write highly enough about the recently introduced
Tax Chamber to the Appeal Service, which bears absolutely no comparison
to the old Commissioners System which it replaced.
HMRC is essentially a predatory organisation charged with a responsibility
with generating tax. Conversely the Appeal Service is charged with
conducting a thorough assessment of a situation, and coming to an
objective conclusion which serves the interests of equity and is
based on the balance of probabilities.
The Service itself is free so the only costs incurred by the client
are our fees. Going to Tribunal can thus actually be less expensive,
more likely to be successful, and potentially speedier than a prolonged
exchange of correspondence with an entrenched tax inspector. Additionally
HMRC may well be more likely to back down when faced with a Tribunal
rather than the protests of an agent.
We offer a comprehensive service from case preparation through
to representation at the Tribunal Hearing. Hearings are informal
and very "user friendly".
*This case went before the Benefits Tribunal.
|
