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

[honeybee13]

Well done, I can read that.

 

HB

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

Did you make the submission to the Tribunal as per my longer post 6 posts above ?

[slick132]

We need an answer so we can consider if you need to lodge an application for the Proceedings to be Reinstated under DIRECTIONS 2. of the Judges Order.

[Schipoo]

Yes I did

 

I would like the tribunal to take into consideration the below information before making a decision as to whether it considers me to be liable to pay the whole figure paid out by HMRC to FTR Ltd.

 

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

 

I was approached by Fast Tax Rebates Ltd (reg No 12033598) trading as Max Tax Accountancy in particular Mr Alan Maxwell in early 2020.  They advised me they had done a tax rebate for one of my colleagues, and told me that I was entitled to a tax rebate for previous years expenses I hadn’t claimed.  They asked me for some information ie Name, Address, DOB, National Insurance Number and P60’s.  I gave them this information and was asked by them to call HMRC to request they open up the previous 2 tax years as I was going to be putting in a claim of over £2500, which is what Max Tax told me to say.  

There was various emails and text messages between myself and Max Tax over a few weeks.  I then received 3 amounts totalling £5380 from FTR Ltd.

 

The next contact in this matter was nearly 12 months later when I was written to by HMRC to ask for certificates regarding a claim for EIS.  This was the first time I had ever heard of EIS, firstly I didn’t know what it was, secondly that was never mentioned to me by FTR Ltd.  I didn’t have the certificates that HMRC wanted so I called straight away and spoke to the caseworker assigned to my account XXX   We had a long conversation where I explained things from my perspective and she advised I had done the right thing in contacting her and requested evidence of any contact between myself and FTR Ltd which I did.  She told me that it would take a number of weeks to investigate this matter and to bear with her.

 

I tried to get back in touch with Max Tax via email and phone which were ignored.  I called the centre where they office was based and was told that they have left months earlier with no forwarding address.

 

HMRC refer to my comments in their submission to the Tribunal dated 16th Feb, 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 certificated 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 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.

Since then HMRC have deemed me liable to repay the full amount to them totalling over 16k as it would seem that I only actually received a third of the amount claimed by FTR Ltd.  

Cryoblast Solutions Ltd (Reg No 11050630) were dissolved in January 2020 which is before I had received the funds.

 

Upon investigation I have found other information surrounding this case.

Alan O’Hara was the director or Fast Tax Rebates Ltd until June 2021 (but was the director at the time of payment) He was also the director of Cryoblast Solutions Ltd named above.  He is also director of Easy Tax Claims Ltd (Reg No 12675977)

Anthony McNabb is still the director of Fast Tax Rebates Ltd and he is also director of Easy Tax Claims Ltd.

I am aware that FTR Ltd and Max Tax have used the same tactics to obtain tax refunds from many other taxpayers. Northumbria 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.

 

This isn’t a rare occurrence nor an isolated incident.  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.

 

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.

 

 

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

You didn't mention the item I suggested as point #2 :-

 

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.

 

Any reason ?

[Schipoo]

I didn’t think it to be true in my case, I can’t prove that because they had my gateway log in 

 

 

 

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

This may be a missed opportunity. You asked about proving this point in February and I replied with my views back then.

 

The suggestion of using that piece of legislation came from people more experienced and qualified than me - I was simply passing it on from TaxWatch.

 

Unless you challenge the Judge's decision in the manner stated, HMRC are going to come after you for the full amount. At best, you may be able to agree a repayment plan.

 

It's up to you ............

 

 

[Schipoo]

So what would you now suggest? 

[slick132]

I suggest your best option is to respond to the Judge's decision of 22nd April within 28 days, citing the legislation i referred to 4 posts above.

 

If you want to give this a go, let us know but you'll have to follow our advice closely .........

[Schipoo]

I will respond to the judge’s decision this week. Is that all I’m putting? 

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

Pretty much but please put your draft here first for consideration and possible changes, before you file it with the court and copy it to HMRC.

 

This will be your last chance so let's get it as good as we can.

[Schipoo]

Hi - please see below my draft for a response to the tribunal. Can you advise if I’m responding under section 2 to either -

 

apply for proceedings to be reinstated or if I believe the reason to strike out contains an error of law?

 

 

[slick132]

You will apply for the Proceedings to be reinstated but not due to any error in law.

 

I also have some additional case reports which are interesting and relevant to your case. I'll post this later.

Edited May 16, 2022 by slick132
any ERROR

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

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 in your Tribunal appeal.

[Schipoo]

I’ve gone through the cases and highlighted what I think might be relevant I’ll type it up later and post for you to look at. 
 

why do you think my case got struck out and Dixons has been accepted for a hearing?
 

Also, will you take a look at item 12 on my strike out please

12. Unfortunately, questions such as whether HMRC should have made the repayments when they did or whether the Appellant should be treated as only having received repayments equal to the amounts passed on to her by the agent do not affect the question as to whether the EIS claims should be disallowed. The Appellant should consider taking advice as to whether these sorts of issues might affect the amount she is required to repay to the Respondents. However, that is not a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. 

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo, please stick to this thread to discuss your canse thanks. The post on the EIS General thread has been removed.

 

That'll be good - remember what I suggested before, to keep it simple and relevant. Avoid a whole summary of events.

 

Judges consider each case separately - their ruling can be a Lottery.

 

What's your query about item 12 ?

[Schipoo]

Am I to seek advice, and if so, who by?

Ive tried a solicitor and an accountant at the very start of this process and they couldn’t help me. 
Then I tried the local MP, action fraud, hm treasury, the police….. it’s like it’s a cover up and no one wants to get involved 

[slick132]

The judge's comment was a suggestion that you could consider seeking professional advice but we simply cannot recommend anyone - that choice has to be yours.

 

It's clear from one of the 2 Tribunal case Rulings that there's a Joint Action - you could consider getting a free initial interview to see if that might be a way forward for you.

 

Meanwhile, focus on sorting your appeal against the Strike Out decision - don't let that date slip by.

[Schipoo]

Hi, this is my draft for submission on Thursday. Let me know what you think

 

I would like to appeal the decision to Strike Out the tribunal, for the reasons stated below. 

 

I was approached by Maxwell Accountancy ( how and when plus why did they contact e.g. referral by friend ) to make the claim for expenses during 3 tax years. I did not give FTR Ltd any such authority (what was the basis of any authority you gave them) and nothing was ever mentioned about the EIS, I had never heard of it.  There are notes on my file ( be specific with date and what file  ) where I called in (who did you call) and asked for other tax years to be opened up because I believed I was claiming expenses linked to those tax years on my call to HMRC that was all that was mentioned.  (explain what you belief was about the expenses)

 

My earnings in those 3 tax years wasn’t enough to justify making the investments FTR Ltd say I made.  The Ltd Co they say I invested in has the same director as FTR Ltd.  What was it that prompted HMRC to investigate my case?  Was it because the officer thought that the amount of investment outweighed what was possible on my salary?  Did the officer doubt my ability to afford such an at-risk investment. No checks were made whatsoever. (I would remove this sentence as it suggests you might have taken the risk)

 

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 knowledge or connivance. (explain where this comes from i.e legislation)

 

The funds were requested to be sent to a nominated bank account given by FTR Ltd in a bank account in their name, I didn’t authorise them to do that, and subsequently I found out 12 months later that I only received 1 third of the full amount. (You say that you did not authorise them to do this.  It might help, if you stated this a bit clearer.  e.g. there were no  communications with FTR to authorise any tax rebate payment to be paid into a Bank account in the name of FTR Ltd)

 

I did not see, review or sign any form for any claim with Alan Maxwell of Maxwells Accountancy. Nor did I see any return from HMRC to say I had claimed to having made any investment under the EIS.  Nor did I see what was claimed by FTR Ltd.  The loss sustained by HMRC was brought about by FTR Ltd and they were facilitated by HMRC’s policy of pay now and check later.

 

The amount of people who have now been affected by an EIS type fraud is rising and I can refer to other cases where they have not been struck out and have been successful in getting to Tribunal. 

 

[honeybee13]

Schipoo, you haven't mentioned what Slick said on March 16th, is there a reason for this? I thought there was another relevant point but I can't find it atm, I'll keep looking.

 

In your first paragraph, it isn't clear to me how you came to be dealing with Maxwell and FTR at the same time. I think that would be worth clarifying but see what Slick thinks.

 

HB

[Schipoo]

I did on item 165 the paragraph I missed out was the below which Slick asked the reason why on item 166, I’ve included it in item 176

 

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 himunless he proves that it was delivered without his knowledgeor connivance.

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Hope you don't mind. but I have made a few suggestions in red, which Slick can comment further about.

 

Be more specific with some of the information and offer more of an explanation, so anyone reading this does not form the opinion that you did not bother to enquire how FTR Ltd were going to get you tax refunds.  You let them get on with it.

[slick132]

Hi Schipoo,

 

The submission needs to be in not later than Friday 22nd May. I've been busy all day but will do my best to see you have a reply ready by Wednesday 20th May.

 

You must include reference to the UK Stat'y Instrument in full.

 

You also need to refer specifically to the recent Tribunal Rulings as they are cases very similar to your own. They are McCumiskey V HMRC on 12th April 2022; and Huntley v HMRC on 22nd April 2022.

 

In the former case there are similarities to your own in that you appointed Maxwell but the EIS claims were submitted by FTR Ltd - am I right on this?

 

In the latter case Huntley was given permission to apply to join 9 others in a Group Litigation being handled by a tax advisory firm.

 

You're right to NOT go back over the whole history - this has already been done in your last submission and the judge clearly considered most of the relevant facts in the Ruling. But you must draw attention to anything new and relevant.

 

I'll be back Tues or Weds.

[dx100uk]

for everyone........

 

 

Huntley v HMRC.pdf Huntly v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 135 (TC).pdf McCumiskey v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 128 (TC).pdf

[Schipoo]

 

Quote

 

Slick

 

 

In the former case there are similarities to your own in that you appointed Maxwell but the EIS claims were submitted by FTR Ltd - am I right on this?

 

 

That’s correct