No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[OnYourBikeGB]

They have no chance of proving fraud. It's a complete load of tosh. Remember the reason that attracted all of this to the scheme was its emphasis on openness, honesty and transparency. there isn't a single shred of evidence that there is even a suspicion that we acted fraudulently, because there is none. It's a desperate play.

[screwthis]

Well officially you haven't told anyone that you have changed your mind...

The jury would be told

[BarneyCool]

They have no chance of proving fraud. It's a complete load of tosh. Remember the reason that attracted all of this to the scheme was its emphasis on openness, honesty and transparency. there isn't a single shred of evidence that there is even a suspicion that we acted fraudulently, because there is none. It's a desperate play.

Well said!

[smalldog]

They have no chance of proving fraud. It's a complete load of tosh. Remember the reason that attracted all of this to the scheme was its emphasis on openness, honesty and transparency. there isn't a single shred of evidence that there is even a suspicion that we acted fraudulently, because there is none. It's a desperate play.

WHS

its a load of tulip, if they thought that it was legitmately fraud they wouldnt have "settled" with George, they would have taken him to the cleaners and reported him to the CPS. They are hoping for a running scared cave in, but what they forget is a lot of people have nothing to lose and also those that can pay would potentially roll the dice and take great pleasure in bringing the HMRC machine complicit in this to its knees.

[bananarepublic]

The jury would be told

My point was that the TAA was a fishing trip. Nobody has officially told HMRC that they wish to change the basis of their appeal. Except George that is....

[DotasScandal]

They are hoping for a running scared cave in, but what they forget is a lot of people have nothing to lose

This.
Expect the same thing for DOTAS.

[Morlock]

They have no chance of proving fraud. It's a complete load of tosh. Remember the reason that attracted all of this to the scheme was its emphasis on openness, honesty and transparency. there isn't a single shred of evidence that there is even a suspicion that we acted fraudulently, because there is none. It's a desperate play.

If they thought they could prove fraud over this course of action, why did they agree to a meeting? It smacks of a bluff.

[bananarepublic]

If they thought they could prove fraud over this course of action, why did they agree to a meeting? It smacks of a bluff.

Agreed. Its nonsense. They have to allege fraud because being merely careless (also nonsense) only allows them to go back 6 years.

Basically if they can prove fraud against us then anybody saying they are self employed when they aren't or outside IR35 when they aren't would also be guilty of fraud.

Perhaps DR can shed some light on the tone of the meeting?

Was it in the afternoon. Perhaps they had been down the pub for a liquid lunch?

[OnYourBikeGB]

"Your Honour, the defendant stated on his 2003/2004 tax return that he was self-employed, knowing full well that some retrospective legislation would be passed in 2009 which would try to take away the tax advantages of that self-employment, and that he could then in 2015 - after sufficient time has passed - claim to have been working for an agency all along in order to defeat that legislation. I have never seen a clearer case of premeditated and deliberate fraud than this one, your Honour."

Brilliant summation of Hector's position. I think we should go to FTT asap. This is a stalling tactic, and given what they have done to us in the past, I really don't want another Finance Act rolling round before this is settled. Apart from anything, I'd love to hear their argument to support their bulltulip, dare I say, libellous, argument.

[screwthis]

Brilliant summation of Hector's position. I think we should go to FTT asap. This is a stalling tactic, and given what they have done to us in the past, I really don't want another Finance Act rolling round before this is settled. Apart from anything, I'd love to hear their argument to support their bulltulip, dare I say, libellous, argument.

Agree. It sounds like the possibility of sensible negotiations was not entertained in the meeting.
Therefore we move to the next stage. FTTT