HMRC asking me to repay Fast Tax Rebates Ltd scam rebate

[dixon2094]

Update from MP:

 

"Hi XXX,

I received a response from XXX (NP Sergeant), unfortunately, they said that Northumbria Police are not investigating Fast Tax Rebates, nor any nominals attached to the company and that HMRC are leading on all reports linked to Fast Tax Rebates.

 

With this in mind, I’ve contact HMRC again to ask for an update on any investigations to see if we can find anymore information for you.

Kind regards,

XXX"

 

On 25/04/2022 at 13:00, dixon2094 said:

 

 

"I’d expect it to be a decision of NP to defer to HMRC.

 

As you can imagine, we don’t come across cases of Serious Fraud very often so I called an expert in the House of Commons Library who confirmed that HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service is responsible for the department’s civil and criminal investigations.

 

I strongly suspect that NP will have deferred to the FIS as they are the specialists in this field, especially as the investigation will revolve around misuse of EIS.

 

I’m hoping that following my email to HMRC, they can at least confirm if they are investigating Fast Tax Rebates and what actions are likely to be taken by FIS.

I hope this helps,

XXX"

[honeybee13]

Well done, Dixon, they're sounding helpful at the moment.

 

HB

[slick132]

 

Hi Dixon,

 

Please take time to see the 2 Tribunal Rulings made recently on the EIS General thread - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/439099-information-on-fast-tax-rebates-ltd-and-the-eis-scam/?do=findComment&comment=5165660

 

 

The cases set no Precedents but the do contain info relevant to your case. Read them cases carefully so you can refer to relevant aspects when dealing with HMRC or the Tax Tribunal.

[dixon2094]

Thanks Slick. I'll take a look this evening.

 

Further update from local MP office:

 

"Good afternoon XXXX, 

After a frustrating back and forth with HMRC this morning, I'm afraid they are unwilling to disclose whether or not they are investigating Fast Tax Rebates due to confidentiality. 

 

This is because the fraud in question is related to taxation and so is covered by confidentiality legislation.  

 

Unfortunately, other than lobbying ministers, I don't think there is more our office can do to be of assistance.

 

I'm very sorry we could not be more helpful in the run up to your tribunal. I wish you the best of luck and please keep us updated as to how the matter progresses. 

Kind regards, 

XXXX"

[dixon2094]

Hi,

 

Thought this email may be of interest from HMRC's side in relation to the hearing on 24th:

 

"Mr XXX

On 09 May 2022 I sent you an email with an electronic copy of the bundle of documents which I will refer to during the Case Management hearing on 24 May 2022.  

 

Can you please confirm that you have received the email and are able to access the bundle?

 

I have included within the bundle copies of all documents and communications submitted thus far in order to give the Tribunal a detailed overview of the case.

 

 Please note that the Tribunal has confirmed that this is not a hearing of the appeal.  

 

As stated in the Tribunal email of 14 April 2022 the purpose of this hearing is solely to enable the Tribunal to issue further directions."

 

 

[Rob Carr]

Dixon in your first post you say

 

“A month ago from now (around a year later from the original claim submission), I received a letter in the post from HMRC saying they were investigating a tax rebate claim submitted by me for EIS (Enterprise Investment Scheme) relief.” 

 

This would be roughly May 2020 you received your payout from FTR? 
 

My “claim” was originally investigated by HMRC in June 2020.

 

Could it be possible that there was an overlap where HMRC were paying money to FTR whilst also investigating similar claims? 
 

If I’m understanding, there is only a month between your claim being paid out and mine being investigated and I doubt I was top of the list of people being investigated given how many people this has actually affected.

[slick132]

Hi Dixon,

 

You can reply to HMRC Sol'r saying you've rec'd their Bundle (if you have).

 

Have you had a chance to look at the 2 Tribunal Rulings I listed above ? They could be important for your case so please read through and make notes of similarities.

[dixon2094]

On 16/05/2022 at 20:53, Rob Carr said:

Dixon in your first post you say

 

“A month ago from now (around a year later from the original claim submission), I received a letter in the post from HMRC saying they were investigating a tax rebate claim submitted by me for EIS (Enterprise Investment Scheme) relief.” 

 

This would be roughly May 2020 you received your payout from FTR? 
 

My “claim” was originally investigated by HMRC in June 2020.

 

Could it be possible that there was an overlap where HMRC were paying money to FTR whilst also investigating similar claims? 
 

If I’m understanding, there is only a month between your claim being paid out and mine being investigated and I doubt I was top of the list of people being investigated given how many people this has actually affected.

Hi Rob, yes it seems that way!

 

PS: my hearing is tomorrow. I'll be taking a look at the Tribunal rulings tonight in preparation

[slick132]

Have a good look at Schipoo's latest submission, done last week.

 

Of the 2 Tribunal Rulings in April, the shorter one (McCumiskey v HMRC) is probably the more relevant.

 

Just do all the preparation you can and let us know how you get on.

[dixon2094]

On 11/05/2022 at 11:05, dixon2094 said:

Hi,

 

Thought this email may be of interest from HMRC's side in relation to the hearing on 24th:

 

"Mr XXX

On 09 May 2022 I sent you an email with an electronic copy of the bundle of documents which I will refer to during the Case Management hearing on 24 May 2022.  Can you please confirm that you have received the email and are able to access the bundle?

I have included within the bundle copies of all documents and communications submitted thus far in order to give the Tribunal a detailed overview of the case.  Please note that the Tribunal has confirmed that this is not a hearing of the appeal.  As stated in the Tribunal email of 14 April 2022 the purpose of this hearing is solely to enable the Tribunal to issue further directions."

 

 

Thanks Slick.

 

Looking back at #206, "Please note that the Tribunal has confirmed that this is not a hearing of the appeal.  As stated in the Tribunal email of 14 April 2022 the purpose of this hearing is solely to enable the Tribunal to issue further directions"

 

Not sure what this means and how this would compare to a hearing of the appeal - just want to ensure I don't waste time this morning preparing information if it's not relevant, and would rather focus on something that's useful today.

[honeybee13]

What time is the hearing, Dixon?

 

HB

[dixon2094]

2pm today

[honeybee13]

Thank you.

 

Hopefully @slick132 will manage to find a moment in his day to let you know.

 

HB

[dixon2094]

Okay great, thanks HB

[slick132]

The hearing is so Directions can be made, ie how the case is to proceed.

  

There should be no hearing of evidence or opinion today - just the Judge giving Directions about how and when evidence is to be submitted.

 

HMRC may try to suggest your appeal should be Struck Out. You can counter this saying recent Rulings in April give you encouragement that HMRC may be forced to back down. Even though the Rulings have set no formal precedent, they suggest HMRC's stance is at least questionable.

 

Let us know how it goes.........

[honeybee13]

How did it go on Tuesday, Dixon?

 

HB

[dixon2094]

Hi - sorry - I set an alert to update you all 12pm today, but i'll do it now.

 

Essentially, the purpose of the hearing was a case management hearing, I believe, and in relation to HMRC's application for a strike out.

 

Apparently, I didn't officially "argue" or "dispute" HMRC's application for a strike out (I sent emails when advised earlier in this thread, but they may not have treated them as official "disputes") and so this was a hearing for the Judge to see what was going on, be updated with the case, and decided on future directions.

 

You'll already know, but HMRC's standing is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and by law needs to take the appropriate action.

 

My argument re anything to do with a scam, or FTR, etc, isn't really a direct response to their application for strike out as their POV is that I am not disputing the fact a rebate was made incorrectly.

 

I presume, my only argument is to further prove and clarify I had NO IDEA and gave NO AUTHORITY to FTR to claim EIS relief. I think maybe the legislation would help here... 

 

I would imagine I need to get past this strike out request, and then can dive deeper into the scam/fraud, etc, avenues.

 

The McCumskey and Huntly cases did help me somewhat in that I predict without them the Judge would've accepted HMRC's application for strike out is this very hearing - along the same lines of Slick's posts #115, more specifically #183.

 

The fact I brought them those cases up and said although they have differences (HMRC is well aware of these two cases - almost like they expected me to bring them up)

 

i.e. one of them is a late appeal hearing, and the other is a discovery appeal (mine is re a final closure), they do have little-some relevance given the Judge's decisions on them and they mention EIS.

 

In summary, I have 28 days from yesterday to draft an official reply to HMRC strike out, in which they then have 28 days to reply.

 

A next hearing is already booked for 10 August.

 

There was a lot talked about in the hearing so apologies if I've missed something (I've tried to remember as much as I can)  - happy to clarify any questions.

 

I'd just like to add - the HMRC rep was very sympathetic, as was the Judge, and even HMRC called it a 'scam', and said I'd done everything possible LBA, ICO, MCOL, etc, which was good.

 

It was almost like they both could understand what's happened, but as per their job roles and the law, can't do anything to help me.

 

There's some part of me, however, that feels like the Judge has given this extension for a formal reply to HMRC's application to strike off as she wants me to have a "fair" and "just" appeal

 

so has given me more time to "look into those 2 cases" and "further study them to pick relevant parts", and provide further evidence as to why I believe my case should move forward.

 

Almost like, she knows what will work in order to move it forward and the proof I need, and wants to give me time to find it... without telling me what it is... if that makes sense?

 

I could be wrong.

[honeybee13]

That's a helpful summary, thank you. You've got past another hurdle

 

HB

[slick132]

Thanks for the report Dixon.

 

Was the judge the same one who heard the McCumiskey and the Huntley cases ?

 

You have a good grasp of what you need to do in the 28 days you've been given to file a RELEVANT challenge to HMRC's move to have the claim Struck Out.

 

 

[dixon2094]

Please see attached for the Directions. No, the Judge was a different Judge.

Directions.pdf

[slick132]

So you have 28 days from 30th May to send your representations to HMRC objecting to their Strike Out Application.

 

Use this time to your advantage and come back here no later than 20th June, so you can submit by the deadline of 2th June.

[dixon2094]

Hi, please see attached my first draft response.

 

I'm finding it difficult to make it relevant in that HMRC's argument is that FTT don't have jurisdiction... but I've tried to include everything I deem relevant in that;

 

a) I was a victim of fraud in that investments were made in my name without my knowledge.

 

b) It's a nationwide scam (even HMRC confirmed it was a "scam").

 

c) As a result, I can't be responsible for the repayment of monies awarded, for something claimed for that I was not entitled to, nor did I give permission for the claims to be submitted - if that makes sense?

 

I would really appreciate any input/amendments - no doubt i've probably missed something crucial. I've formatted similar to the template given to Schipoo.

 

Thanks!

Directions Response v1.pdf

[slick132]

Thanks Dixon and I'll review this later today

[slick132]

Hi Dixon, 

 

I note you used the format from Schipoo's thread here but did you also use all the points you could from the Schipoo submission I suggested here - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/437942-hmrc-seek-repayment-after-fast-tax-rebates-ltd-take-most-of-rebate/?do=findComment&comment=5167208

 

If so, I don't see much else you can add but I suggest you number the points as per the example.

 

Also, 3 minor changes :-

 

1) ..... ability to invest large sums in risky EIS schemes and paying out without any sufficient due diligence.

 

I suggest - .....ability to invest large sums in risky EIS schemes, yet still refunding tax without due diligence or even basic checks.

 

2) Alongside the above, there is no differing in opinion in that FTR carried out a scam that affected hundreds .....

 

I suggest - There is no question that FTR carried out ......

 

3) ..... stages of my case, and certain organisations have published media warning the public .....

 

I suggest - ..... stages of my case. Various tax/accountancy organisations including the Low Income Tax Reform group and TaxWatch have published articles highlighting these scams and questionning HMRC's "Repay now; Ask questions later" approach.

 

[dixon2094]

Great, thanks Slick - i'll make amendments and send back