Jump to content


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


Schipoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Schipoo,

 

Just so others know, I've received your revised draft and I plan to knock it into shape and post it here by tomorrow.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, my final draft…..

 

I would like to appeal the decision to strike out the tribunal below.

 

I sent my objection to strike out application to HMRC on 17th March 2022 (copy attached), Being an unrepresented tax payer I considered this was the right course of action, and the HMRC litigator (who was aware of my unrepresented status) did not advise me to send it to the Tribunal. 

 

I was approached by Maxwell Accountancy specifically Alan Maxwell,  via a work colleague, to make a claim for expenses. They told me it would cover 3 tax years and was asked to call HMRC to open up years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20. I called into HMRC on 24.2.2020 to do so which are confirmed in the notes on my SAR.

When Sandra Patrick from HMRC wrote to me on 23.2.2021 to ask for EIS certificates I had no idea what she was talking about.  I was then advised that FTR Ltd had claimed for EIS relief for 3 investments.  I did not give Fast Tax Rebates Ltd any such authority to carry out any work on my behalf.  I had no contact from FTR Ltd whatsoever. The suggests to me that Alan Maxwell passed on my information onto a third party without my knowledge or agreement. 

 

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 i did not sign any tax returns or authority to receive any money on monies on behalf. subsequently, I found out 12 months later that I only received 1 third of the full amount paid out to FTR Ltd by HMRC.

 

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? 

 

 

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.

 

 

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 knowledge or connivance. I had absolute no knowledge that fraudulent claim was being made by a third party receiving repayment of whom I had no knowledge. 

 

The reasoning to overturn the closure notices dated 23.2.2021, refer to Section 8 of the taxes management Act 1970, and that the returns were not submitted in accordance with that provision. Therefore HMRC are not able to open an enquiry under section 9A TMA 1970, and by extension issue a Closure Notice under Section 28A TMA 1970.

 

There has been some very recent Tribunal Rulings which are very similar to my case, they refer to the same scam, and these were not Struck Out.  These are McCumiskey V HMRC on 12th April 2022 and Huntly V HMRC on 22nd April 2022.  In the latter Huntly was given permission to join 9 others in a Group Litigation being handled by a tax advisory firm.

The McCumiskey decision shows that there is a reasonable prospect of success, and that my case is almost synonymous with theirs. This is in terms of the agency aspect, and that the agent that completed the returns was not actually engaged by me. 

 

The amount of people who have now been affected by an EIS type fraud is prolific and I have been told that 1 officer has oversight of over 200 of these cases. Indeed there are other cases where they have not been struck out and have been successful in getting to Tribunal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked Schipoo to post this but I'm working on a further draft right now ............

 

........... which I'll post later.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL                                                                         CASE NO:

TAX CHAMBER

 

BETWEEN

[YOUR NAME] (Appellant)

 

-and-

 

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS (Respondent)

 

APPLICATION FOR PROCEEDINGS TO BE REINSTATED

AFTER STRIKE OUT ON 22nd April 2022

 

1. I make this submission in response to the decision to Strike Out the proceedings made on 22nd April 2022 by Judge Robin Vos.

 

2. I initially spoke to Alan Maxwell of Maxwells Accountancy Services and he suggested he would be able to help me reclaim tax.

 

3. I gave Mr Maxwell information as requested unaware that this would be used unlawfully to defraud HMRC and myself.

 

4. I understand the 3 tax returns (2017/18; 2018/19 & 2019/20) were submitted to HMRC by Fast Tax Rebates Ltd, a separate company run by director Alan Francis O’Hara.

 

5. Throughout these proceedings reference has been made to Maxwells/FTR but it is important to note that these are 2 separate companies.

 

6. I never knew about FTR Ltd until after they paid me tax refunds and I never gave them authority to act on my behalf. I therefore suggest the following legislation applies :-

 

7.  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.

 

8. The tax returns prepared by FTR Ltd were submitted without my knowledge or consent.

 

9. The £66,000 EIS relief claimed was for monies allegedly invested in Cryoblast Solutions Ltd, a company also set up by director Alan Francis O’Hara.

 

10. HMRC failed to reply to my specific questions about Cryoblast Solutions Ltd, namely :-

 

a)      If any certificates were lodged on my behalf in support of the EIS relief claimed.

b)     If HMRC ever approved Cryoblast as a recognised EIS investment.

c)      HMRC acted rashly in allowing EIS relief with no proof of investment in a company not approved as an EIS scheme.

 

11. I draw attention to 2 other Tribunal case rulings made in April 2022 regarding the same type of fraudulently claimed EIS relief.

12. McCumiskey v HMRC (12th April 2022) in which the Appellant’s appeal against discovery assessments was allowed. The Ruling noted it was unlikely the Appellant was in a position to make large investments in an EIS scheme, given his modest income.

 

13. Huntley V HMRC allowed the Applicant’s late appeal against discovery assessments, allowing him to join group litigation action with 9 other Appellants. This group action concerns fraudulent EIS claims made in circumstances very similar to my own, where little regard was made by HMRC as to the taxpayer’s ability to invest large sums in risky EIS schemes.

 

14. I am grateful to Judge Vos for his comments in para. 12 of his Ruling on 22nd April. If this Application is successful I have already spoken to the tax advisory firm acting for Huntley and others to see if I may join the group litigation.

 

15. I am grateful to the FTT for considering this Application.

 

 

Statement of Truth - I believe the facts stated in this Application are true.

 

 

Signed ________________

 

[Printed Schipoo full name]

 

Date: xx May 2022

  • Like 2

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Schipoo,

 

Please check the above carefully checking for typos and accuracy.

 

If happy with it, File and Serve to the Tribunal and to HMRC respectively.

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it reads really well, Slick, brilliant work. :D

 

Being pedantic [you know me], at the top of your document, appellant is spelled with one L. And I think it's respondent rather than respondant but I could be wrong.

 

HB

  • I agree 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks HB, edited.

 

Two Pedantic Peas in a Pod, that's us !

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...