Information on Fast Tax Rebates Ltd and the EIS scam

[slick132]

Hi All,

 

Dixon2094 who was scammed by FTR has to reply to HMRC with an update very soon.

 

Do any of you have any updates about your cases - eg. has anyone managed yet to get a proper dialogue with the police.

 

Or have you had any further interaction with HMRC or their Legal Bods.

 

Thanks

 

 

[Schipoo]

I spoke to Northumbria Police and they didn’t have a clue what I was talking about and told me to speak to Action Fraud again. I also emailed them twice and had no response. Between Northumbria Police and Action Fraud we are getting nowhere down the authority road. 

[slick132]

Hi Bradx and Schipoo,

 

Please see my advice to Dixon about the police here - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/435744-hmrc-asking-me-to-repay-fast-tax-rebates-ltd-scam-rebate/?do=findComment&comment=5140562

 

 

You have nothing to lose by being more assertive with the police about your rights.

 

Also, rather than calling them, why not visit your local police station and politely demand action, failing which you'll complain about their failure to investigate the alleged crime and criminals.

 

All updates on your own threads please.

[slick132]

Anyone involved in the FTR scam should see this post :-

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/437942-hmrc-seek-repayment-after-fast-tax-rebates-ltd-take-most-of-rebate/?do=findComment&comment=5155092

 

 

Watch either Dixon or Schipoo threads for suggestion on what to do with this info.

[Rob Carr]

1.      Did FTR initially contact you, or you contacted them. I contacted them by email after being referred.

 

2.      Who did you speak to at first and later.

emails, texts, Facebook messenger app with Allan Maxwel, Claire and Sian. 

 

3.      What did they say they could do for you.

A tax rebate of up to 30%.

 

4.      What documents did you provide them with, and by what means.

Email reply to a “what we need from you” template. Sent them a photo via text of my UTR once it arrived in the post as requested. 
 

5.      Did you give them info like N I No, UTR.

yes

 

6.      Did you sign a paper form of authority and send it to FTR.

no

 

7.      Did you agree to any T&C’s online using a Tick Box.

no

 

8.      Were you told anything about investing in an EIS.

no

 

9.      Were you told anything about claiming EIS tax relief.

no

 

10.   Did you know FTR would be repaid any tax refund.

no

 

11.   Were you told about what percentage FTR would keep of any tax refund.

no

 

12.   When FTR sent you money, did they include any info about how this was made up.

no

 

13.   Did they inform you how much of the refund they kept.

no

 

14.   Were you shown any documents seeking your approval or signature during the process.

no

[slick132]

Thanks for that Rob.

 

Keep an eye on Schipoo's thread - subscribe to it using the FOLLOW link - top right of the start of the thread.

[slick132]

Thanks to LITRG for the following summary of a very relevant case :-

 

 

Shaun McCumiskey V HMRC

This is a really odd case. The taxpayer was a self-employed electrician who had income of about £2,500. He appointed somebody to submit his tax return and after being told that no tax was payable thought no more about it. He was then issued with an assessment for over £3,500, on the basis that he had made a claim for SEIS relief which was not due.

That was the first that he had heard about the claim. It is not clear exactly what had happened, but somewhere in the process a return had been submitted in his name claiming that he had income of £30,000 and had made a SEIS investment of £15,000. HMRC had made a tax repayment to a company which the taxpayer had never heard of and with which he had no connection.

HMRC argued that the taxpayer was none the less responsible for paying back the tax relief which had been paid to the unrelated company. It argued that he had appointed an agent and that therefore there had been a loss of tax caused by somebody acting on his behalf.

The tribunal gave short shrift to that argument. If the agent had delegated the task to somebody else (which seems to have been what happened here) than the person to whom the task is delegated is not acting on the taxpayer’s behalf. So, the conditions to raise an assessment were not met.

What is more interesting perhaps is the comments on whether there was sufficient information in the taxpayer’s return to alert an officer to a potential insufficiency in the amount of tax payable. HMRC admitted that the return was not checked before the payment was made: the tribunal judge commented that although the loss sustained by HMRC was brought about by the [purported agent] he was facilitated by HMRC’s policy of paying now and checking later. She clearly thought that somebody in HMRC should have done something to investigate the matter before making the repayment, saying

we do not accept that there was insufficient information available to the officer to doubt the validity of the claim for SEIS relief of £7,500 in respect of an at-risk investment of £15,000 by a person on a modest salary such as Mr McCumiskey. We have seen a number of these cases where claims for EIS/SEIS have been investigated and the investigation has begun because the investigating officer has doubted the ability of the taxpayer to afford to make such an at-risk investment. Indeed, we note the usual attributes of investors in SEIS companies are set out in HMRC’s statement of case. Mr McCumiskey does not fit that description. We also consider that it is most unlikely that an electrician would have precisely £30,000 of income and no deductions at all in the first year in which a trade is carried on. We doubt that the conditions for section 29(5) were satisfied.

Common sense prevailed and the taxpayer was not required to repay the SEIS relief which had gone to an unconnected party. What exactly went on here is something of a mystery, but can it be right that HMRC pays out these sorts of amounts without apparently carrying out any basic sense checks?

 

Full case report is here - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2022/TC08459.pdf

[honeybee13]

That's very interesting, Slick, well done. 

 

HB

[slick132]

Thanks also to the LITRG for sharing another recent Ruling made by the Tax Tribunal.

 

This case concerns an individual whose late appeal was denied by HMRC, but allowed by the Tribunal. The final Directions of the Tribunal say the individual can then apply to join a case being brought jointly by "Independant Tax" regarding 9 other cases.

 

Both of these Tribunal Rulings are relevant to our EIS cases on CAG. Take time to read these carefully, to see what aspects could be used in your own cases.

pdf_03-05-22-tc08466.pdf

[Schipoo]

Wow there are so many people who have been scammed in more or less the same way. How can I get that into my tribunal appeal? 

[slick132]

By careful reading !

 

Select aspects that are relevant to your case.

 

Bear in mind that both these cases differ from your in various ways - it's not a simple " Get Out " for you but referring to the right aspects may be helpful in your case.

 

Use your own thread to discuss this further.

[honeybee13]

Thread re-opened.

 

HB

[slick132]

I read earlier that HMRC are repaying 60,000 taxpayers who made claims through Tax Credits Ltd

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/information-for-customers-of-tax-credits-ltd/information-for-customers-of-tax-credits-ltd-refunding-tax-reclaims

 

 

This has been referred to by AccountingWEB, a forum for tax professionals - https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/hmrc-to-reimburse-60000-tax-credits-ltd-clients?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AWUKPOTW051022&utm_content=AWUKPOTW051022+CID_5e051e8c26941a2907121630269eefce&utm_source=internal_cm&utm_term=HMRC to reimburse 60000 Tax Credits Ltd clients

 

There's also comment from the LITRG.

 

[Schipoo]

Interesting…

[slick132]

I know the FTR Scam is different but there are certainly similarities to the HMRC decision highlighted above.

 

HMRC's site discusses the issues here - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/raising-standards-in-tax-advice-protecting-customers-claiming-tax-repayments/raising-standards-in-tax-advice-protecting-customers-claiming-tax-repayments

 

They've started a consultation process, now closed, which will publish in due course.

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

 

HB

[slick132]

Thanks again to The LITRG for drawing my attention to this important and relevant ruling from the FTT - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2023/TC08746.pdf  The case was heard in Nov 22 but the Ruling given on 2nd March 23.

 

Read through carefully to see what parallels this has to your own case.

 

Please don't comment on this thread - use your own thread to discuss any issues.

[slick132]

Each of you challenging HMRC needs to read through this Judgement carefully to identify useful similarities to your own case.

[slick132]

@Schipoo @Rob Carr @dixon2094 and others involved with FTR tax reclaims -

 

Have you taken time to read the judge's ruling in the Appeal heard by the FTT - Robson v HMRC

 

This thread here is locked but you can comment or reply on your own threads.

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened for an update.

HB

[slick132]

Not specifically about EIS but "expenses" claimed by agent on behalf of taxpayers, supposedly without them knowing what agent claimed on their behalf - BBC1 Rip Off Britain - Series 15, Episode 18 - First 20 minutes.

Discusses cases of Apostle Accounting filing claims on behalf of 800+ taxpayers leaving taxpayers owing tax back to HMRC.

According to the BBC, Apostle Accounting Ltd made "expenses" claims on taxpayers' behalf, took 24% for themselves and sent the balance to the taxpayers.

Then HMRC are claiming back the FULL refund amount from the taxpayers, leaving them owing over £1.8 Million to HMRC.

The item ended with HMRC's head Angela McDonald saying taxpayers are always responsible even if an agent acts on their behalf. They appear to ignore, once again, that this is an agent using taxpayers to make money, then deny responsibility and get off with no consequences.