The hearing is so Directions can be made, ie how the case is to proceed. There should be no hearing of evidence or opinion today - just the Judge giving Directions about how and when evidence is to be submitted. HMRC may try to suggest your appeal should be Struck Out. You can counter this saying recent Rulings in April give you encouragement that HMRC may be forced to back down. Even though the Rulings have set no formal precedent, they suggest HMRC's stance is at least questionable. Let us know how it goes.........

Have a good look at Schipoo's latest submission, done last week. Of the 2 Tribunal Rulings in April, the shorter one (McCumiskey v HMRC) is probably the more relevant. Just do all the preparation you can and let us know how you get on.

Thanks HB, edited. Two Pedantic Peas in a Pod, that's us !

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.

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

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

Hi CardSrong, Please use you own thread to ask Q's - don't hijack other threads. All addresses for Barclays are in the Stickies at the top of the Barclays forum. Thanks.

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.

Hi Dixon, You can reply to HMRC Sol'r saying you've rec'd their Bundle (if you have). Have you had a chance to look at the 2 Tribunal Rulings I listed above ? They could be important for your case so please read through and make notes of similarities.

Hi Dunkey, As I said in my post above, you need to carefully read the threads here for both Dixon and Schipoo. You'll find useful info to help you. Also, see recent posts on the General thread about the EIS scams. Read from here onwards and take time to read the Tribunal Rulings for the cases of McCumiskey v HMRC and for Huntley v HMRC - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/439099-information-on-fast-tax-rebates-ltd-and-the-eis-scam/?do=findComment&comment=5165660

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

Hi Dixon, 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 when dealing with HMRC or the Tax Tribunal.

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.

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

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

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.

Hi Dunkey, I've moved your post to your own new thread that you can use from now on. You need to read through threads here for Dixon and Schipoo so you can see how their cases have run so far. Please confirm what stage you're at with HMRC - like have you appealed the determinations; have you had a Tribunal Hearing; etc.

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.

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 .........

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 ............

We've been here a long time and have NEVER seen Major Law take court action for a gym case. Ignore this.

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 ?