HMRC seek repayment Maxwell and FTR Ltd

[slick132]

Would this tax rebate scam fall into the category of investment fraud ?

[Rob Carr]

Tax identity theft for sure - HMRC paid out on the basis of non-existent investments so possibly? 

From memory Dixon was told their tax was being reclaimed for investment purposes?

[honeybee13]

I think the problem could be that FTR didn't give any tax advice or invest people's money. 

HB

[Rob Carr]

Posted on Schipoo's thread first, then moved here

Slick. Not sure if you’ve spotted this in another thread but Cryoblast was dissolved in 2018 before the returns were submit. Whether they qualified or not would have been irrelevant at this point would it not?

Edited November 15, 2023 by slick132
Moved from Schipoo's thread

[Rob Carr]

I have spent the day compiling my notes and documents for the tribunal and have gone through what I have with a toothcomb. 

I have made over 12 pages of notes to be used in reference with over 100 pages as part of my bundle to the tribunal and three cases in Huntly, Mccumiskey and Robson.

I have never really took the time to sit and go through things properly - I work full time, sometimes unsociable hours and have three young children.

HMRC are absolutely shambolic and this whole thing stinks.

I have evidence that my appeal, review, independent review contain copy and pasted aspects from other peoples reviews. 

HMRC officials repeatedly mistake FTR and MTR and claim that I’ve provided my details to FTR despite me only having contact with MTR. 

The HMRC bundle submit to tribunal includes numerous phone call transcripts with the exception of two - firstly, where I was only directed on how to pay (similar to huntly) and secondly where I specifically remember being told that my grounds of appeal had no reasonable chance of success. I have submit an SAR specifically requesting these documents.  

HMRC describes the behaviour of the agent as “careless” in not checking whether Cryoblast was eligible for EIS3 before submitting. Impersonating someone to submit a return with monies then being transferred to one of your associates is not careless behaviour. 

also worth noting that the return submit “by me” will have been submit using a contact email address “[email protected]” this will have been the case for @Schipoo and many others.

[slick132]

Posted on Schipoo's thread first, then moved here

Hi Rob,

What's relevant is that HMRC have to approve a company for it to qualify for EIS investment. Prior to repaying tax, HMRC could, or should, have check that Cryoblast Solutions Ltd qualified for investment or noticed that it was dissolved.

Either way, HMRC failed miserably !

Edited November 15, 2023 by slick132
Moved from Schipoo's thread

[Rob Carr]

Posted on Schipoo's thread first, then moved here

Cryoblast/Fast Tax having the same director.

Cryoblast being involved as far back as 15/16 when listed as a payee in Robson.

Paying out investments when instructed to open expense returns. 

No EIS certification/dissolved companies.

£51k worth of high risk investments within 12 months on a salary of roughly £30k

Continuing to pay claims to FTR whilst MTR were under investigation (and FTR) were the listed payee. @Fountain9219 was paid out in August 2020 by FTR. I got my first letter from HMRC in June 2020. 

Referring to victims as “willing participants” and claiming “they have benefitted from their involvement.” Whilst describing deliberate acts of fraud as “careless” submissions.

Blocking a police investigation into MTR and FTR “to save duplicity” but now more and more examples where they have decided not to defend appeals to the tribunal. 

An ever growing list of failings on their behalf. In a normal world and not this clown society were living in they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. However, even taking all of this into consideration I am still not confident that I will receive a fair outcome.

A law unto themselves. 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by slick132
Moved from Schipoo's thread

[honeybee13]

Posted on Schipoo's thread first, then moved here

£51k worth of high risk investments within 12 months on a salary of roughly £30k

I'm not clear where you're heading with this. I was under the impression that no investment was made on your behalf but maybe I missed something.

HB

Edited November 15, 2023 by slick132
Moved from Schipoo's thread

[Rob Carr]

Posted on Schipoo's thread first, then moved here

No investment was made on my behalf. 

To generate the rebate the investment box was ticked to say that I had invested 16k, 20k and 15k into Cryoblast.

Two returns were submit in April 19 and one in April 20. As part of EIS these investments generate tax relief of up to 30%.

30% of 16k = my total tax amount of tax paid PAYE for that tax year. Straight in fast tax back pocket.

For HMRC to believe the claims were legitimate I needed to have invested into an EIS3 approved company (no evidence that Cryoblast has this)

Submissions stating £51k of investments into a high risk company within 12 months on a 30k salary.

“Due diligence” as they call it. 

I believe this is where “claim up to 30% of your tax back” comes from.

Genuine EIS claims generate a rebate of up to 30% based on your level of investment and tax paid for the year of investment. 

FTR and MTR were running several scams at the same time. 

Some people were told about investments (Dixon), others were told they had overpaid tax (BradX), others were told they could claim business expenses (myself and Schipoo)

The one consistency is the 30% figure. I guess this is what provided some sort of continuity when luring people in especially through their referrals. 

An FOI into EIS scams revealed there have been more than 300 people scammed in some way using EIS to generate a rebate where none was due. 
 

Edited November 15, 2023 by slick132
Moved from Schipoo's thread

[slick132]

Hi Rob

Some posts from Schipoo's thread have been moved here to keep threads relevant to the Original Poster

[Rob Carr]

Apologies for hijacking someone else’s thread. 

After submitting my documents and supporting evidence yesterday HMRC have called me today to say that they have requested a stay to the tribunal in regards my current closure notices and have opened discovery assessments to protect their position. I can appeal these as the normal process.

Not 100% sure what this means for me. 

[slick132]

No probs, I just want to keep Schipoo's (and eveyone else's) thread as focused as possible.

Keep us posted re developments on your case ...........

[Rob Carr]

What could be the reason for changing it from closure notices to discovery assessments? 

I don’t understand the reasoning behind it?

The person I spoke to from HMRC said both sides would be required to submit new SOC etc 

[Rob Carr]

https://www.investmentfraudappg.co.uk/press-release-hmrc-targeting-of-victims

[slick132]

Hi Rob,

This makes for very interesting reading but the article doesn't mention the exact type of fraud to which you've all fallen victim at the hands of FTR, Maxtax, etc. The Group article refers to pension and investment fraud

Maybe you could approach one of the contacts with brief details of the EIS tax scams here on CAG. Ask if they consider your cases to fall within the focus of their attempt to have HMRC treat victims more fairly.

[Rob Carr]

Hi Slick,

I’ve emailed Sue Flood - victim representative and Alex Sobel - party chair to see if I could send them some info over. I will keep the thread updated with my progress.  

[slick132]

Excellent and thanks.

HMRC need to be held accountable for their failings and stop bullying the easy targets, the scam victims.

[Rob Carr]

I refer to Tribunal letter dated 13 December.

 

I confirm the Respondents have no objection to the Appellant’s request for a postponement of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday 19 December 2023. 

 

The Respondents note the Appellant is no longer represented and is attempting to gather the information to allow him to proceed and fully prepare for his appeal.  As such the Respondents consider it fair and just that the Appellant be afforded the time requested. 

 

Further to the postponement the Respondents would respectfully request the appeal be Stayed.  

 

The Stay is requested as the Respondents have issued Alternative Assessments in relation to the same tax years and substantive issues currently before Tribunal under TC/2022/11706. 

 

The Assessments are made in order to protect HMRC’s position in relation to the argument raised by the Appellant regarding Regulation 8 of the Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/282), namely that the returns in question were delivered without his knowledge or connivance. 

 

The Respondents confirm that the Appellant would not be charged twice for the same tax year but that, following further consideration, the Assessments are being made in the alternative in the event that the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has discharged the burden of proof under Reg 8 and the closure notices are quashed. 

 

The Respondents consider the Stay would afford the Appellant the opportunity to appeal against those Assessments to HMRC and the Tribunal.  Following which, and with Tribunal’s agreement, that appeal could be consolidated with the current appeal and all matters heard together thus saving time, costs, and inconvenience for all parties. 

[Rob Carr]

https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-report/2023/12/hmrc-pensions-fraud-victims-tax

[slick132]

Good find Rob.

Interesting that the article fails to report about the ruling by the FTT Hearing for Rob Huntley.

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

HB

[Rob Carr]

Cormack v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE : application to strike out), [2021] UKFTT 355 (TC) | First-tier Tribunal (Tax), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

WWW.CASEMINE.COM

---

Get free access to the complete judgment in Cormack v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE : application to...

 

Judge rules that assessments were invalid due to fraud.