HMRC seek repayment Maxwell and FTR Ltd

[Rob Carr]

There are some similarities but mine is longer. 
 

They refer to other cases that I have no knowledge of.

 

Revenue and Customs v Khawaja [229] BTC123)

 

61. In consideration of the Tribunals jurisdiction, HMRC note the principles summarised by the Upper Tribunal in R & J Birkett (trading as The Orchards Residential Home,Dunmore Residential Home, Kingland House Residential Home, The Firs Residential Home, Merry Hall Residential Home) v HMRC [2017] UKUT 89 (TCC)(Nugee J and Judge Ashley Greenbank) at [30]:

 

Dixon dealt with FTR, I never had any dealings with FTR only MTR. However, HMRC paid to FTR. 

99. The Respondents note the Appellant’s comments that he did not authorise Fast Tax Rebate Ltd to act on his behalf. Fast Tax Rebate Ltd were shown as the repayment nominee on the Self-Assessment returns. The Respondents submit that the Appellant was in agreement for Max Tax to submit forms on his behalf and evidence, in the form of messages, demonstrates that Max Tax submitted the returns .

100. The Appellant has provided evidence to show that he received two bank payments which clearly state that they are from ‘Fast Tax Rebates’ and that they relate to a ‘tax refund’.

 

[Rob Carr]

20221221 Statement of Case_Bentley R.pdf

[Rob Carr]

Hmrc have just sent me this. They originally asked that tribunal dismiss the case but I’m guessing it’s now going ahead?

List of documents.pdf

[slick132]

Hi Rob,

 

The list you just rec'd is HMRC's list of doc'ts they intend to rely on for the hearing.

 

The doc't you posted on 7th Jan sets out their arguments, contentions and the legislation they'll rely on, much of which you've seen before in exchanges.

 

IMHO, Para's 91 to 105 are the crutial points. HMRC seek to counter your contention that s.8, ICTA (Electronic Communications) Regs 2003 applies. You've said the refunds were claimed by MaxTax without your knowledge or connivance and HMRC say you DID know about the submissions or connivie with Max Tax.

 

You have to argue :-

 

1. You knew MaxTax were acting for you but had no idea what they were doing as you relied on them as tax "experts".

 

2. You weren't aware that they were acting improperly in using your pesonal Log In access details to file returns on your behalf.

 

3. You had no knowledge about EIS or MaxTax claiming this on your behalf.

 

4. You've never suggested you were due any EIS relief, despite HMRC making a big fuss about this aspect. 

 

5. You're a victim of MaxTax's fraudulent activity, along with maybe hundreds or thousands of similar victims.

[Rob Carr]

@slick132 hi slick, yes I’ve read through the judges ruling in the Robson appeal. It is a different agent but the similarities are there and the agents could be linked due to the EIS claim being made into Cryoblast.

 

I’m not getting my hopes up just yet but it is good that someone else has at least had some success. 
 

 

[slick132]

Hi Rob,

 

Yes, it's certainly different in that the agent made the reclaim through the normal agent's channel, as opposed to the majority of cases here on CAG where the agent used the individuals' access portals to file Returns and claim the EIS relief.

 

But there are relevant similarities that our CAG cases should use to their best advantage.

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened, please add your update here.

HB

[Rob Carr]

Hi, thanks for reopening the thread, I just wanted to update for anyone that was following this thread or similar threads as it seems to have gone quiet recently.

I now have legal representation from independent tax (the same company that represented Huntly).

They have applied for a ‘stay’ in my case due to the similarities in other cases and also that I have my case joined to the ‘tweddle group’ which I believe are a group of people that were also victims of EIS scam albeit through a different agent to Alan maxwell, fast tax rebates etc.

HMRC have submit their pack to the tribunal today and have included the following legislations and cases.

Legislation Reg. 8 Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2003 SI2003282 146 Section 157 Income Tax Act 2007 - Eligibility for EIS relief 147 - 148 

 

Section 203 Income Taxes Act 2007 - Entitlement to claim 149 - 150

 

Legislation (cont...) Section 28A Taxes Management Act 1970 - Completion of enquiry into personal or trustee return 151 - 155 

 

Section 31 Taxes Management act 1970 - Right of appeal 156 - 159 

 

Section 49(D) Taxes Management Act 1970 - Notifying appeal to the Tribunal 160 - 161 

 

Section 50 Taxes Management Act 1970 - Procedure 162 - 166 

 

Section 9A Taxes Management Act 1970 - Notice of Enquiry 167 - 170 

 

Case Law HMRC v Woodstream Europe Ltd [2018] UKUT 398 (TCC) 171 - 186

 

Huntly v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 00135 (TC) 187 - 205 

 

McCumisky v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 128 (TC) 206 - 217 

 

R & J Birkett (trading as The Orchards Residential Home, Dunmore Residential Home, Kingland House Residential Home, The Firs Residential Home, Merry Hall Residential Home) v HMRC [2017] UKUT 89 (TCC) 218 - 234 

 

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Khawaja [299] BTC 123croner-i-tax-and-accounting-export 235 - 251

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

thank you very useful to our members.

 

dx

[slick132]

Hi Rob and thanks for the update.

I'm pleased to hear you now have expert representation. When HMRC remain so pig-headed focusing stubbornly on their argument - "You received tax relief for EIS to which you were not entitled." - yet remain oblivious to the circumstances where you were all victims of FTR or Maxwell's fraud, you need all the help you can get.

Please keep us updated with events.

I wish you well !

[Rob Carr]

Just to update - I have my tribunal date set for 19th December. 

I did not include the Robson case in my direction to the tribunal as this was submit beforehand.

However, I am now aware that someone else who was scammed by Alan Maxwell/Fast tax rebates appealed the full amount including the proportion they received and included the Robson ruling in their directions to the tribunal and hmrc chose not to defend the appeal. 

[honeybee13]

Hi.

Do you have anything in writing about the other person or can you post a link that we can have a look at please?

HB

[Rob Carr]

Hi HB,

They said after they amended their tribunal directions to include relevant points from the Robson ruling they received an email from hmrc saying “after careful consideration hmrc do not wish to defend this appeal” 

I haven’t seen the email but I have known this person a while and we have been keeping each other updated with our cases. 

[honeybee13]

Thank you. I don't think that gives us a lot to go on though. Is this person on CAG at all?
 

HB

[slick132]

Hi Rob,

Please find out whatever you can and let us know some relevant details.

Given the number of folk who have been victims and the amounts of money they could have to repay to HMRC, any specific information could be crucial crucial  in helping others.

[Rob Carr]

I spent last night going through my emails etc and independent tax have added the Robson case to my application. 

I will message and see if they would be willing to send me a redacted version of the email. 

[Rob Carr]

Received as part of an email from independent tax yesterday.

The main reason for this is that following an application by HMRC, the judge has agreed with their submissions and believes that they need to focus on each individual’s specific circumstances.

As such they want to hear each case individually rather than using a sample approach.

This is because they believe the determinant is not in what happened but whether the actions that you each took individually were reasonable.

Whilst we disagree with this position, unfortunately now that the judge has taken this view and, as they will be the person making the decision, it is unlikely that any submissions would be able to convince them to overturn the decision.

This seems absolutely absurd to me.

Given that everyone at the tribunal has been scammed in similar ways either by Fast tax or Max tax rebates. How can the judgement now be based on the reasonable steps we took to prevent it? 

[slick132]

Hi Rob,

Schipoo has had the same communication from Independant Tax so each individual will have to defend their own case with no Group Action going forward.

[Rob Carr]

Hi slick, I’m in regular contact with Schipoo and BradX. BradX was successful in their appeal tribunal and hmrc chose not to defend. I have been discussing with schipoo what we should do next. Independent tax will no longer be representing me/us as individuals. 

what is your opinion on “This is because they believe the determinant is not in what happened but whether the actions that you each took individually were reasonable.”

 

[honeybee13]

It's nice that you're in touch with schipoo and BradX but it would be great if Brad could update his thread here please.

HB

[slick132]

Hi Rob,

I didn't know you were in touch with Schipoo or BradX.

I heard from Schipoo by PM this morning that Independent Tax had to stop the Group Action as HMRC had successfully challenged it so each case must now be heard individually.

As Honeybee says, BradX may be helping by sharing what has happened in their case.

[dx100uk]

5 minutes ago, slick132 said:

Independent Tax had to stop the Group Action as HMRC had successfully challenged it

that was going to always happen at some point, i really hope no-one paid them any money, it's the way these always pan out...oneway or another. prob find the directors are already in spain....

[Rob Carr]

Unfortunately I have paid them.

I was feeling quite confident knowing that I had representation going into the tribunal and that BradX had been successful in their appeal (even though they are the only person that I know of that has been).

Now it seems I’m back to square one and out of pocket. The email from independent tax states that they have requested a further extension for the group of 45 days, however, I believe my hearing will remain on the date originally planned of 19th December. 

[Rob Carr]

Hi, I have uploaded the original comments to the tribunal that was sent on my behalf by independant tax.

I am going to send an email with the following addition, also attached. Please can someone confirm this would be the correct way to add the extra grounds of appeal. Thanks.

comments redacted.pdf.docxcomments redacted2.pdf.docx

[Rob Carr]

The Investment Fraud APPG

WWW.INVESTMENTFRAUDAPPG.CO.UK

---

The Investment Fraud APPG is a neutral cross-party forum bringing together parliamentarians of all parties from both...

may be of interest to the site team?