PDA

View Full Version : APN refund



StrengthInNumbers
3rd August 2015, 13:08
Assuming HMRC lose in FTT, will they refund or will the drag and appeal all the way up for 10yrs before refunding? What is general view?

Underbase
3rd August 2015, 13:14
Assuming HMRC lose in FTT, will they refund or will the drag and appeal all the way up for 10yrs before refunding? What is general view?

With no actual knowledge of the situation, just going on how they have dealt with things so far, I imagine they will drag it on and on.

DotasScandal
3rd August 2015, 13:17
Assuming HMRC lose in FTT, will they refund or will the drag and appeal all the way up for 10yrs before refunding? What is general view?

Check your APN, you'll see there a provision there where they reserve the right "to ask the tribunal for permission" to keep your money in case of appeal. It's there for a reason.

Also, check out this dude's situation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/raf-bomber-command/11776979/Bomber-Command-Memorial-fundraiser-faces-loss-of-home-after-taxman-keeps-40000-he-paid-in-error.html).

Many hints.

Given that all this tax-grab money has probably been spent by Government already, I see NO WAY for it to be repaid in our lifetimes.

webberg
3rd August 2015, 15:11
In the majority of cases, where HMRC loses in FTT AND they have not made a repayment, then they do so.

They are able to apply a discretion in many cases about whether to repay or not if something is under enquiry.

If they lose a case and appeal my guess therefore is that they will withhold repayment. They have legislative and judicial precedent for this.

For the record, from FTT to Supreme Court might take 5 to 7 years so the "not in your lifetime" might be hyperbole?

DotasScandal
3rd August 2015, 15:56
In the majority of cases, where HMRC loses in FTT AND they have not made a repayment, then they do so.
They are able to apply a discretion in many cases about whether to repay or not if something is under enquiry.
If they lose a case and appeal my guess therefore is that they will withhold repayment. They have legislative and judicial precedent for this.
For the record, from FTT to Supreme Court might take 5 to 7 years so the "not in your lifetime" might be hyperbole?

Your analysis is based on your experience (which I greatly value) in the pre-APN world. I am taking the view that HMRC will not play fair. This belief is based on the way the APN regime has been operated so far:

- HMRC had promised to give advance notice of APNs to scheme providers; they did not.
- HMRC had assured they would use the APN powers in a sensible manner; they are not, instead they adopted a scatter gun approach with not a hint of "quality control".
- HMRC had assured they would only serve APNs where the sums are known and have been carefully calculated; this turned out to be a false statement (we are seeing APNs that are grossly excessive guesstimates, even as HMRC has data at hand (but no incentive, I assume) to produce an accurate figure)

As for the 5-7 years, that is also based on "old world" estimates - I think we are in agreement that one side-effect of APNs will be to clog up the court system.
This being factored in, my personal guesstimate is 10y+. A lot can happen in the world in that time.

So, maybe just a slight hyberbole.

StrengthInNumbers
3rd August 2015, 16:34
This is a ******* shame. Even if u want to pay APN, we shouldn't! HMRC should have made it clear if they lose at FTT they will refund. More confused now

Iliketax
3rd August 2015, 17:55
Your analysis is based on your experience (which I greatly value) in the pre-APN world. I am taking the view that HMRC will not play fair. This belief is based on the way the APN regime has been operated so far:

- HMRC had promised to give advance notice of APNs to scheme providers; they did not.
- HMRC had assured they would use the APN powers in a sensible manner; they are not, instead they adopted a scatter gun approach with not a hint of "quality control".
- HMRC had assured they would only serve APNs where the sums are known and have been carefully calculated; this turned out to be a false statement (we are seeing APNs that are grossly excessive guesstimates, even as HMRC has data at hand (but no incentive, I assume) to produce an accurate figure)

As for the 5-7 years, that is also based on "old world" estimates - I think we are in agreement that one side-effect of APNs will be to clog up the court system.
This being factored in, my personal guesstimate is 10y+. A lot can happen in the world in that time.

So, maybe just a slight hyberbole.

I can understand that but the APN regime contains some protections. First, it is not HMRC's decision. They can only try to keep the cash if there has been an appeal. Then it is up to the relevant court. But that means that you have to be a party to the court case. If you are not, the legislation doesn't seem to help you. The wording used is "the relevant court or tribunal considers it necessary for the protection of the revenue". Necessary is quite a tough word. And there is case law on "the protection of the revenue". It is used in relation to VAT but there it is up to HMRC to decide and so some of the case law is not in point. With an APN it is up to the court. And the court "may" choose to do something and doesn't have to. If it does, it can make sure that there is some form of security in place and then give a refund.

In the context on an APN, I would say that there must be a good chance of getting your money back as (i) you've paid it in the first place and so you must have some financial nous about you to be able to pay the tax again if it is repaid and you then lose, (ii) you've just won a tax case and so if the judge sided with you once, they are likely to do so again, (iii) necessary is a high barrier. On the other hand if the bailiffs collected the cash by selling your telly, you've been made bankrupt and are now living in a country that the judge can't find on a map, I wouldn't fancy your chances.

Underbase
3rd August 2015, 18:01
I can understand that but the APN regime contains some protections. First, it is not HMRC's decision. They can only try to keep the cash if there has been an appeal. Then it is up to the relevant court. But that means that you have to be a party to the court case. If you are not, the legislation doesn't seem to help you. The wording used is "the relevant court or tribunal considers it necessary for the protection of the revenue". Necessary is quite a tough word. And there is case law on "the protection of the revenue". It is used in relation to VAT but there it is up to HMRC to decide and so some of the case law is not in point. With an APN it is up to the court. And the court "may" choose to do something and doesn't have to. If it does, it can make sure that there is some form of security in place and then give a refund.

In the context on an APN, I would say that there must be a good chance of getting your money back as (i) you've paid it in the first place and so you must have some financial nous about you to be able to pay the tax again if it is repaid and you then lose, (ii) you've just won a tax case and so if the judge sided with you once, they are likely to do so again, (iii) necessary is a high barrier. On the other hand if the bailiffs collected the cash by selling your telly, you've been made bankrupt and are now living in a country that the judge can't find on a map, I wouldn't fancy your chances.

And the chances, after the first case that they are made to give large sums of money back before the court, I would put money that we see someone from HMRC in front of a select committee with made up figures of 80% of appeals are won or some such and that they need a law change to keep the money. I think that people have become rightly suspicious.