HMRC asking me to repay Fast Tax Rebates Ltd scam rebate

[Schipoo]

I am unable to open the attachment but I suspect it’s the same I got last night whereby hmrc are refusing to hear the group action and wants each individual person to have their own tribunal, which means we can’t split the costs billed by independent tax working on our behalf!!!

[dixon2094]

The Directions PDF is more just reiterating the process from 2022 to 2023+.

 

The Letter To Me PDF, is them just reminding me to submit a Witness Statement - I have no idea what that is, or how I do it.

 

However, it kindly makes reference to an appeal that was decided upon a few months ago, in a case similar to mine, in which the appellent won, as the Tribunal:

"concluded that *agent* was the not authorised agent of *appellent*. That being so, the return cannot be deemed to have been submitted on behalf of *appellent*. As s29 TMA requires the filing of a return the statutory requirements are not satisfied... For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed."

This is exactly the same situation as mine, is it not? So the Tribunal have shown favour to the appellent, against HMRC, and the appellent is no longer required to pay HMRC anything.

[Schipoo]

You would think so and that is the avenue I’ve been going down along with a group of others in the same situation as us but hmrc have now rejected that our cases are the same and this group action and we now have to separately submit our cases and attend separate tribunals which will be costly and time consuming, bearing in mind this is 3 and half years it is has been going on now! I am out of my depth with this now so will probably cost me thousands with no guarantee of winning 

[slick132]

Hi Dixon,

 

I suggest you respond to HMCTS immediately :-

1. Updating them about your ongoing medical issues.

2. Confirm any dates that you know of when you'll be unavailable for a court hearing. 

3. Apologise for not submitting the Witness Statement within the latest 14 day deadline and confirm your intention to reply to them as necessary within 14 days from now. Confirm you only just found their email sent to you 3 weeks back.

[dixon2094]

Done

 

 

[slick132]

Regarding the Robson case, that decision was interesting and encouraging but you can't just say, "It's the same as my own case so I should win my appeal."

I've said before, you need to decide if you're handling this yourself or seeking expert help.

If you're doing the former, you need to identify points in the Robson case that are similar to, or the same as, your case - eg, the FTT Judge found HMRC to be wrong in saying the agent was merely careless :-

" 67. I also did not accept that the actions of CACL were careless. For reasons of confidentiality HMRC made no comment about the allegations of fraud although the documents before me confirmed that the information had been passed to the relevant authorities. Mr Robson is, as I understand the position, one of many taxpayers in this situation. In circumstances where, on the material before me, it appears that a fraud has been perpetrated I do not accept that the actions of CACL can be described as merely “careless”.

The Witness Statement needs to set out a concise history of all that happened through the case from you contacting FTR to the appeal process.

 

[dixon2094]

It's interesting as in my original "hearing", the HMRC agent did mention, in front of the Judge, that this was indeed a "scam".

In relation to the Witness Statement, HMRC has previously provided a "Bundle" which contains 100+ pages of everything I've submitted to FTR/HMRC, etc., and I do remember being able to agree that is all there is to be included. Is it not a case of just saying I agree with everything that's been provided, with maybe the addition of this case, and so forth? As opposed to providing everything again (I will certainly lose the plot gathering all of that).

This is from the recent letter:

Quote

Witness statements
I refer you to the Directions sent on 7 December 2022, a copy of which is enclosed. The Tribunal does not appear to have received notice that your witness statement(s) were served in compliance with Direction 2, which were due on 27 January 2023. I note in your email of 18 April 2023 you have indicated you have nothing to add.

Please note, that it is important that each party to an appeal discloses in advance to the other party the evidence of the witnesses on which they rely, so that both parties can properly prepare for the hearing. Please remember that if you intend to rely on your own evidence, a witness statement must still be provided by you.

You should now immediately provide your witness statement(s) (with an application for the witness statements to be admitted out of time) or tell the Tribunal (if correct) that you are not calling any witnesses to give evidence no later than 14 days from the date of this correspondence.

 

Do I simply not just state I'm calling not Witnesses?

Following the above, my letter states:
 

Quote

 

Case of Robson
The Tribunal issued a decision on 2 March 2023 in the case of Robert Robson v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs which appears to be similar to the matter you are appealing. A link to the decision has been included below for your reference.

Robson v Revenue And Customs (DISCOVERY ASSESSMENTS - EIS - whether taxpayer responsible for actions of fraudulent agent) [2023] UKFTT 226 (TC) (02 March 2023)

WWW.BAILII.ORG

Please provide any comments you may have following this decision within 14 days from the date of this correspondence, or confirm that you have nothing further to add.

I don't have any "witnesses".... or is this precedence a "witness" to wrongdoing? I'm really confused by their term "witness"

Thanks in advance,

[slick132]

Hi Dixon,

As I said above, a Witness Statement is a concise summary setting out the facts on your case, from your point of view. Nothing to do with you calling witnesses or not.

Did you prepare a Witness Statement for the earlier hearing ?

Even if you did, it needs to be updated to take account of the Robson Case.

[dixon2094]

I didn't, no, I've not sent anything in preparation for any hearing. All of what I wanted to bring to their attention previously, was contained within HMRC's "bundle"

[slick132]

Well, this is probably your best and final chance to present your case from YOUR point of view, highlighting points which HMRC may have already stated but in terms that best suit THEIR case.

Read the Robson Case summary carefully making notes where you see similarity which you can use to your advantage.

[dixon2094]

I'll study it over the weekend and make comparisons and notes.

So I'll draft, say, a paragraphed list of comments, on how this case meets/matches mine and how HMRC's comments against me, contradict what has been ruled in this case, in favour of the appellent.

Essentially... HMRC said XXX, but a judge ruled in the opposite favour as set out in XXX by ruling that XXX, etc?

[Rob Carr]

I can send you what I have submitted to the tribunal if this will help @dixon2094?

[slick132]

Hi Dixon,

How are you getting on with this ........ ?

[dixon2094]

Sorry, I've not been well at all this past week and have been asleep most days - extremely fatigued. I'll get this done today and upload it here for review if that's okay.

HMCTS has yet to respond to my email regarding the extension of 14 days, but I'll still do it and send it to them prior to Thursday 21st (14 days from 7th).

FYI: In advance, HMRC has submitted a revised Statement of Case, adding info re the Robson case - see below.

Quote

 

HMRC comments on the case of Robert Robson v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00226 (TC)
86. The Respondent submits that the decision in ‘Robson’ is based on the requirements of Section 29(4) and Section 29(5) TMA 1970 and, as such, is not relevant to this appeal.

87. The current matter subject to appeal, however, is in respect of notices issued under Section 28A TMA 1970 following the conclusion of enquiries into the Appellant’s 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 Self-Assessment Tax Returns.

88. The Respondents contend that, closure notices issued on 24 May 2021, meet the requirements of Section 28A TMA 1970 in full.

CONCLUSION
89. The Respondent submits that
a) The electronic documents, in the form of Self-Assessment Tax Returns, were submitted with the knowledge or connivance of the Appellant in order to secure a
refund of tax.
b) The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the operation of the Respondent’s processes.
c) The Tribunal decision in ‘Shaun McCumisky’ is in respect of the conditions which need to be satisfied in order to allow the issue of an assessment under Section 29 TMA 1970 and is not, therefore, relevant to this case.
d) The Tribunal decision in ‘James Huntly’ is in respect of a late appeal and is not relevant to this case.
e) The Appellant has failed to establish any entitlement to EIS relief. Consequently, the closure notices which amended the returns and self-assessments under Section 28A TMA 1970 shall stand good.

90. The Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal dismisses the appeal.

 

 

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

HB

[dixon2094]

HMRC have emailed 2-weeks prior to the Tribunal hearing date, and have withdrawn from my appeal.

HMRC:

Quote

Dear Sir or Madam.

Appellant: XXXX
Ref: XXXX

This letter, which is copied to the Appellant, is to confirm that after careful review and consideration HMRC does not intend to defend the above mentioned appeal. HMRC would accordingly invite the Tribunal to allow the Appellant’s appeal and close its file.

Yours faithfully
XXXX
HMRC Litigator

 

Tribunal response:

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

APPELLANT: XXXX
OUR REF: XXXX

HM Revenue and Customs have informed the Tribunal that they are no longer defending the decision/assessment which was the subject of your appeal. The Tribunal therefore allows your appeal and any hearing date is cancelled. If you have any further application with regards to this appeal it should be made within 28 days from the date of this letter, in the absence of which the file will be closed.

Yours faithfully,
XXXX
Tribunal Clerk

 

[Rob Carr]

Great news, that’s you, BradX and dwjo who’ve been successful so far!

[honeybee13]

Hi Dixon.

That sounds like excellent news. I've flagged Slick and the site team to let them know, hopefully they will be along later.

HB

[honeybee13]

2 minutes ago, Rob Carr said:

Great news, that’s you, BradX and dwjo who’ve been successful so far!

That's superb news. @BradX and @DWJo, could you update your threads please? We've been worried about you all.

HB

[FTMDave]

That's fantastic news Dixon, well done.

I see you came here in June 2021 - huge applause for having the staying power to stand up to them for so long.

[slick132]

Hi Dixon ,

Thanks for the update which sounds excellent.

If this is as good as I hope, you should receive amended assessments or determinations for the tax years concerned showing reductions of the tax that HMRC was seeking to recover.

Let us know what comes through so we can see if :-

1) They are letting the matter drop entirely, or

2) They seek to recover just the net refunds that you received but NOT the amounts kept by FTR.

Keep us posted........

[dixon2094]

No problem - I will let you know once I receive anything through