HMRC asking me to repay Fast Tax Rebates Ltd scam rebate

[dixon2094]

Please see attached - I've changed a few bits in other areas too...

Directions Response v2.pdf

[dixon2094]

Hi all, is this good to go do you think? Just want to ensure I submit at least a few days before deadline.

[slick132]

Sorry, I've had no internet ........

 

[Having said that, I would like the following to be considered:

Statutory Instrument 2003 ......... etc] - This would make more sense if it followed your Point #2

 

[It’s also unclear and HMRC have failed to provide any information relating to : ] - This should say, It is clear that HMRC have failed to provide ..... etc

[dixon2094]

Brill, thanks Slick.

 

All sent across! Will keep you updated.

 

HMRC now have 28 days to respond, in preparation for the next hearing date on 10 August 2022 at 2pm

[dixon2094]

Hi, please see attached HMRC's response.

Response HMRC.pdf

[Rob Carr]

What happens now then Dixon? I assume hmrc will allow you to set up a payment plan? 

[dixon2094]

This was just HMRC's reply to my Direction's response following the hearing.

 

It now moves to the hearing on 10 August where the Judge will make a decision on how it proceeds - I presume.

 

Not looking good though, I think, from what I can see.

 

I'm going to exhaust all possible avenues before agreeing to pay something I never received, and am apparently liable for, even as the victim of a scam...

Edited July 25, 2022 by dixon2094

[Rob Carr]

Yep. It’s disgusting. I “owe” £12k. Everyone is in the same boat unfortunately. I have been following all of the threads on this site and I was going to include the Huntly and mccumiskey cases in my own appeal but it seems pointless after reading through your last post.

[honeybee13]

Don't give up just yet, Rob. Those are HMRC's arguments against Dixon's submission to the tribunal. It's for the tribunal to decide what's relevant and what isn't, as I understand it.

 

HB

[Rob Carr]

Thanks HB.
 

I am hoping regulation 8 “Delivered without my knowledge and connivance” can be applied to my case as my dealings were with Max tax but payments were made by fast tax. I have no emails, messages etc dealing with fast tax. 

Also, my independent review stated that once my details were obtained they impersonated me to submit returns as opposed to acting on my behalf. 

[unclebulgaria67]

Point 16 of the HMRC response is a bit concerning.  According to HMRC's response you (Dixon) were fully involved with what FTR were doing. There was a question mark on the EIS scheme being legitmate and the full amount could be repayable.

 

Is there any possibility of suing FTR, if you can track them down and would they be able to settle any CCJ ?

[honeybee13]

Nobody has found FTR, UB, even after a successful court judgement. I could be wrong but I think that was Dixon.

 

As I understand it, people couldn't know if Cryoblast had a qualifying EIS because there isn't a public list. Plus, Dixon only found out about the 'investment' in an EIS once HMRC contacted them to say they weren't entitled to claim EIS relief. I'm sure Dixon will correct me if I've got this wrong.

 

HB

 

 

[slick132]

@Rob Carr - Please use your own thread to discuss issues - commenting here makes an already-long-thread even longer and harder to follow. Thanks.

 

Dixon already has a CCJ against FTR but no way to enforce it, despite efforts.

 

I'll take a full look at HMRC's submission tomorrow and come back.

[dixon2094]

14 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Point 16 of the HMRC response is a bit concerning.  According to HMRC's response you (Dixon) were fully involved with what FTR were doing. There was a question mark on the EIS scheme being legitmate and the full amount could be repayable.

 

Is there any possibility of suing FTR, if you can track them down and would they be able to settle any CCJ ?

I told HMRC/Tribunal (and it is the truth) that I was aware FTR were submitting a tax rebate on my behalf, as I was eligible - that's the extent of me "knowing" what FTR we're doing and their "scheme" of keeping a % of the rebate.

 

What I was never aware of, was the fact they were submitting tax returns for EIS relief... EIS was never explained to me, and the first I heard of that and of Cryoblast was from HMRC's letters.

 

To answer HB, yes it was me that went through MCOL and issued a warrant against FTR. They turned up at their address only to find it was a virtual office/they weren't there, etc.

 

It BAFFLES me how the police can't get involved/rejecting investigation, or anyone helping of that matter. IT'S LITERALLY FINANCIAL FRAUD and there's tons of proof/victims. Even HMRC referred to it as a "scam" in my first hearing...

Edited July 26, 2022 by dixon2094

[slick132]

I've been through the submission and there's really nothing new. I'm not particularly worried about what HMRC have now said.

 

There's no counter-reply needed now - it's down to the hearing on the day and for the judge to decide :-

 

1. If the FTT even has a part to play in the appeal process and.....

 

2. If it does, how this will be moved forward.

 

Dixon, I suggest you go through each point made by HMRC and make brief relevant notes as necessary. HMRC's submission is clearly written for their own success, and for your failure. It's now down to you to have your counter arguments ready to use if you're given the chance at the hearing.

 

For example, point 16 - HMRC seek to use what was written in texts to show you were involved in the reclaim process. I suggest this simply shows how FTR were trying to bamboozle you with rubbish and keep you away from your HMRC portal.

 

Also, they continue to refuse to address the issues you raised about HMRC repaying tax with no checks about the alleged EIS company or the relevant investment certificate.

 

There are many points you should have ready to argue so get working on this.

[slick132]

Hi Dixon,

 

I assume you're ready for the video hearing on 10th August.

 

Bear in mind HMRC are looking to convince the judge that the FTT has no jurisdiction because your appeal has no technical merit. They'll suggest the tax relief was claimed by you resulting in a tax refund when none was due - hence it must be repaid.

 

I suggest you argue that HMRC's stance :-

 

1. Seeks to deny you the only chance you have to challenge their attempt to claim back from you all the tax refunded even though they repaid it to FTR who kept most of it.

 

2. Fails to answer important questions about their responsibility to use due diligence before making substantial tax refunds.

 

3. Suggests that you were aware of what FTR were doing when FTR were doing their best to keep you from finding out what was happening.

 

Keep us posted .......

[Ethel Street]

@dixon2094 I've been thinking what I would say if I were in your position at the hearing (although I have no personal experience or expertise or special knowledge of how these hearings work).

 

I would be insistent in putting it to the hearing that I am a victim of a fraud. But because the actual fraudsters can't be found I am expected to pay HMRC's bills and that's just wrong. (I wouldn't be arguing that as a point of technical tax law,  just as a 'person in the street' point about fairness and justice).

 

I would want to point out that what HMRC are painting as me being negligent or complicit in the fraud  are actually examples of me being a victim of skilled fraudsters. 

 

I would ask HMRC whether they have had other reports of FTR Ltd committing similar frauds? Do they consider FTR Ltd to be fraudsters? They'll duck and dive to avoid answering that one but remind them of the facts - FTR Ltd registerd to a brass plate service address. Not responding to court cases (you have a CCJ), Not responding to ICO (you have ICO support that FTR Ltd acted ilegaly) etc etc. Do HMRC consider that charcteristic of fruadulent tax reclaim companies?

 

Ask HMRC what steps (if any) they have taken to find FTR Ltd? Remind the Tribunal of all the steps you have taken.

 

That's just a personal view - experts please say if you think I'm leading dixon on a wild goose chase.

 

Good luck

[unclebulgaria67]

The key point I guess is what does the law state ?  Are HMRC correct that the tax reclaim when proved to be a false claim, is always repayable by the taxpayer ?

 

HMRC probably attend the FTT on a weekly basis to argue similar cases and the Judges have probably heard the arguments before. 

 

Agree with the points made by Slick and Ethel above.  This is taking advantage of members of the public who are not aware of the fraudlulent methods companies like FTR appear to be using.  How are HMRC educating the public about these tax reclaim schemes ?

 

Found this Parliament Committee session where person in charge of HMRC discusses problems with rogue agents using EIS to claim false tax refunds.

 

/Content/img/share.jpg

Parliamentlive.tv - Public Accounts Committee

PARLIAMENTLIVE.TV

---

Public Accounts Committee

 

May be worth seeing if there is any Hansard records of when the legislation was debated in Parliament and for any Parliamentary debates on tax reclaims/EIS. I found the Hansard site not great for searching, so Google may be more helpful

[dixon2094]

Hi, please see my notes for this afternoon's hearing.

 

Please let me know if I've missed something major, or if I've included something irrelevant.

 

PS: is it worth me sending that ParliamentLive.TV link to Tribunal and HMRC in preparation for the hearing (with the timestamp auto locked)?

 

I'm aware the "bald guy" sorry - I don't know who that is - response is

 

"we DO need to look at whether our balance of checking is right".

"It's an unregulated market, and no doubt there are agents who scam us [HMRC] or taxpayer"

"It is an area of concern, and need to drive standards up, and PROTECT taxpayers"

 

In relation to HMRC checking whether EIS schemes companies and checks exist...

 

"We do security checks" - which implies HMRC recognised them as valid... Process now, check later introduced in 1990's - WAY OUTDATED!

 

"We need to focus on bad players in the market..." I'M LITERALLY GIVING THEM ONE, AND THEY'RE PUNISHING THE TAXPAYER. SO MUCH FOR "PROTECTION".

Notes.pdf

Edited August 10, 2022 by dixon2094
Adding attachment

[slick132]

Looking ............

[dixon2094]

I could also add... In a time where the nation has the least amount of trust in Government and their departments, whereby the taxpayers believe the Government is pretty much taking the p*ss out of residents left, right, and centre... HMRC is doing this..

Edited August 10, 2022 by dixon2094

[slick132]

OK, your notes make sense but the outcome depends on what time you're given to voice your concerns. 

 

I'd mention that HMRC have repeatedly failed to address your concerns that they repaid tax for an EIS Company that simply didn't exist - totally negligent !

 

Great bit of video given by Mr Wilde (bald HMRC guy) admitting they failed to even check if an EIS Sceme even existed or was genuine and this was criticised by the MP. Well done to UncleB for finding this.

 

Probably too late to fwd this to the FTT but no harm in trying.

 

Good luck !

 

[dixon2094]

Last time, the Judge provided me with, I would say, the most amount of time to speak. She started with HMRC, and they moved on to me. Essentially, since HMRC last responded to me (the original document I scribbled notes on), I feel it's right I should go first and just comment on each of their responses.

 

I'll leave sending that link to them, just in case HMRC then find something against it. I'll just bring it up, and mention the above quotes.

[honeybee13]

Good luck from me as well Dixon, fingers crossed. 

 

HB

[honeybee13]

How did you get on yesterday?

 

HB