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.

Great news, that’s you, BradX and dwjo who’ve been successful so far!

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

No checks or due diligence whatsoever from HMRC!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 “Alan@max-tax.co.uk” this will have been the case for @Schipoo and many others.

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?

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?

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?

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

I would double check with the tribunal that you have been granted an extension til 11th December as part of the group. My case was unjoined due to it being Max Tax/ Fast Tax and not CACL, so an extension wasn’t applied for on my behalf. I have emailed hmrc and the tribunal today requesting one.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can send you what I have submitted to the tribunal if this will help @dixon2094?

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