HMRC seek repayment after Fast Tax Rebates Ltd take most of rebate

[dx100uk]

pdf's sorted

[slick132]

Thanks DX

 

Hi Schipoo,

 

Follow my advice in post #131 - if I've not come back just before the deadline, post here to remind please.

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

You need to comply with the court letter of 12th Jan so should now reply to the HMCTS Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and the HMRC Solrs Office emails ([email protected] and [email protected]) as follows:-

 

Dear sir or madam,

 

I refer to HMCTS's email of 12th January and can confirm this is my email address for all communication.

 

Yours faithfully,

Schipoo

 

Let us know how you got on with the police. Then we can decide on how to reply fully in the Tribunal process.

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

Please confirm if you sent my suggested reply above, or not.

 

If so, on what date ?

 

Thanks  

[Schipoo]

Hi

I asked Dixon2094 for the details of the person they dealt with at NP so I could speak to them direct but they haven’t replied. 

[honeybee13]

That's a shame, Schipoo. I hope @dixon2094replies soon, it's in the interests of Alan O'Hara's 'victims' to stick together and help each other.

 

HB

[Schipoo]

Hi

I think I may have missed my deadline for the tribunal, on the tribunal letter posted on 18th January I’m sure it said 14 days, or am I getting mixed up with confirming my email address?

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

Did you send the reply to HMRC as I suggested here on 23rd Jan - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/437942-hmrc-seek-repayment-after-fast-tax-rebates-ltd-take-most-of-rebate/?do=findComment&comment=5150645

 

 

HMRC's letter to you of 18th Jan was their reply to you, as required by the HMCTS process outlined in their letter of 12th Jan.

[Schipoo]

Yes I did but that was from their correspondence on January 12th. 
I am referring to the letter on January 18th. 
 

 

Tribunal letter 3.pdf

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

The letter you linked above dated 18th Jan makes no demands of you.

 

If you mean item (a) on the Tribunal letter of 12th Jan, it's unclear about what is to be submitted and by when.

[unclebulgaria67]

Last post temporarily hidden. Checking whether MP's letter details can be made public without redaction.

[slick132]

The following legislation has been brought to our attention by our contact at TaxWatch

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/282/regulation/8/made

 

" Information delivered electronically on another’s behalf

 

8.  Any information delivered by an approved method of electronic communications on behalf of any person shall be deemed to have been delivered by him unless he proves that it was delivered without his knowledge or connivance. "

 

You have good grounds to argue that the info delivered by Maxwell/FTR was delivered without your knowledge or connivance. Yes, you knew they were acting on your behalf but you were never aware of the nature of the EIS tax relief being claimed.

 

I'll come back later about how to present this to HMRC or Tribunal.

[honeybee13]

That looks like a great spot, Slick and I hope it helps. Good work by TaxWatch.

 

HB

[Schipoo]

How do we prove that?

 

I have received HMRC’s request to the tribunal for the case to be struck out 

 

 

 

Strike out.pdf

[slick132]

How do you prove that ?

 

Throughout this process, you've always made it clear to HMRC that you knew nothing about the EIS relief that was claimed on your behalf and I've not seen them challenge this.

 

So this has to be worth a try, particularly as it's likely the formal appeal process is going to fail.

 

We need to consider how best to present this to HMRC and/or the Tribunal - if you've not heard back from me by 23rd Feb, remind me.

 

What's the latest with the police and have you visited the police station yet ?

 

Reminder (for me) :-

 

1 - With all they know about your case and others, why have HMRC not considered this Regulation 8 as a way to reduce what you must repay.

2 - HMRC Sol'r says much about relief being claimed but not due, which no one denies. They say you failed to provide EIS Cert (obviously)! But they make no reply at all re your Q's about whether the EIS Scheme that was claimed for was actually recognised by HMRC.

3 - Time limit to reply to the Strike Out Application. 

4 - "HMRC consider the Tribunals’ jurisdiction is limited to whether HMRC were correct to reject the Enterprise Initiative Scheme (EIS) claims for relief." But could the Tribunal decide if HMRC are correct in ignoring Reg 8 which could affect how HMRC regard the submissions made on behalf of Schipoo by Maxwell/FTR.

Edited February 23, 2022 by slick132
corrected to "Strike Out"; Memo added

[Schipoo]

On 12/02/2022 at 09:40, unclebulgaria67 said:

Last post temporarily hidden. Checking whether MP's letter details can be made public without redaction.

Did you check this?

[slick132]

Yes, all noted re the letter.

 

Have you made progress contacting the police ?

[slick132]

You may also find useful information in the following link :-

 

 

Contact Us

WWW.TAXWATCHUK.ORG

---

If you want to find out more about TaxWatch, our research, have something to share with us or just want to say hi!, you can contact us using the...

 

[Schipoo]

I’ve had an email saying I have until 22nd March to submit my case to the tribunal 

[slick132]

Just to update here .........

 

Schipoo sent me (by PM) their draft response to send to the Tribunal, for me to look over.

 

The following post was my reply to Schipoo ............

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

Thanks for taking the initiative and drafting your submission.

 

My concern is that you've relayed pretty much the whole story from start to finish - but this is not of concern to the Tribunal.

 

The Tribunal is there to decide if HMRC have followed the relevant Taxes Acts and Regulations properly. And, strictly speaking, they have done that.

 

I think you best bet is to use this opportunity to say some or all of the following  :-

 

1. I was not aware that Max Tax or Fast Tax Rebates Ltd were using my tax account to commit fraud.

 

2. I have recently learned of UK Statutory Instrument 2003, No. 282, PART 3, Regulation 8 - Any information delivered by an approved method of electronic communications on behalf of any person shall be deemed to have been delivered by him unless he proves that it was delivered without his knowledge or connivance.

 

3. I suggest HMRC should have used this Regulation to reduce the tax repayable by me to the amount FTR Ltd paid to me - £5,380.

 

4. HMRC refer to my comments in their submission to the Tribunal dated 16th February, namely :-

 

a) Were any share certificates provided by the agent to support the claim – if so, please provide copies to me.

 

b) The company is required to submit forms to HMRC and HMRC needs to issue authorisation for compliance certificates to be issued to the investors, which enables any relief to be claimed.

 Please confirm if HMRC issued authorisation certificates for the EIS company for which tax relief was given and supply copies of any relevant documents submitted in respect of the relief claimed.

 

c) If no such certificates were issued to the company or investors, surely HMRC was premature to allow such relief without sight of proof of investment, given the relatively rare nature of EIS relief claims.

 

I make the following points about the above items a, b and c respectively.

 

A) HMRC has not replied to me about this.

 

B) HMRC has not confirmed if Cryoblast Solutions Ltd (the company allegedly invested in) was recognised as an approved EIS investment. If it was not approved by HMRC, no tax relief should have been allowed and no tax rebate made.

 

C) If Cryoblast Solutions Ltd was an approved EIS investment, I maintain HMRC acted rashly by making no checks when the relief was claimed by FTR Ltd.

 

5. I am now aware that FTR Ltd and Max Tax have used the same tactics to obtain tax refunds from many other taxpayers. The Police, Action Fraud, the Low Income Tax Reform Group, Tax Watch are all aware of this and HMRC have changed phone messages, now warning taxpayers about this scam.

 

6. HMRC’s policies and processes have been weak and fraudsters have taken advantage of that. FTR Ltd,  Easy Tax Claims Ltd and Alan Maxwell are still trading and advertising for people to claim rebates from HMRC today.  Attached is Alan Maxwells advert from Twitter now targeting offshore workers in particular.

 

7. I respectfully ask that the Tribunal considers the aspects of my case over which it has jurisdiction so my liability is reduced to repaying the tax rebate which I actually received, not the full amount paid to FTR Ltd.

 

Let me know your thoughts, Slick 

[Schipoo]

I have received the below

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by slick132
Faulty PDF doct removed

[dx100uk]

pdf damaged

[slick132]

Schipoo, repost the PDF as we can't see the one you posted.

 

Thanks

[Schipoo]

I will try again 

Strike out 23.4.22.pdf

Edited April 24, 2022 by Schipoo
redacted