Success Story for tax deception?

[teddy0409]

As a law abiding person I am with in my right to file a tax late, As filing tax late is not classified as evasionn

I don't think anybody in this country: citizen, corporation, or any other entity with tax responsibilities: has a right to file taxes late. Indeed taxes, including their timely payment of, are considered a basic responsibility of being a member of a society, especially as this is a critical part of what allows a society to continue to function. This is a responsibility that is analog to, and hand-in-hand with, certain rights one likewise has in a society.

The UK, in general, doesn't necessarily apply very many punitive measures on individuals for filing taxes late. But that should never be construed as a 'right' to file taxes late! Cases of gross misconduct by individuals involving large amounts of money, immigration cases, questionable corporate accounting practices, and any other scenarios that invite scrutiny on finances, are all likely to draw the ire of the government when discrepancies are found, a government which may then decide to mete out its punishment as it sees fit.

Dear Ouflak1,
Hope you don't get me wrong,
Any UK business man is legally allowed to file a late return up to a period of three years with or without a reason. With a valid reason he will getaway with the penalties, if not he will pay the penalties. Being a business man myself with two limited companies employing 11 staffs since 2012, I am completely aware of what I am quoting in the public forum. I mentioned 'With in my right to file a tax late' Since having a valid reason for filing tax late is not an offence and the penalty itself is challangeable..
The 'word with in my right' (Exercising something which is available in front of me) was delivered by the HMRC staff when I enquired about 'Is late filing an offence?'
If my case go to the court, I will get this fact in writing from HMRC,
Hope this helps
Kind Regards,
Anan

[ouflak1]

I just want to be certain that it is understood that there is no 'right' to pay taxes late. The UK government has allowed for some valid reasons for doing so, and that is fine. But that does not confer any 'right'. It is possible a visitor to this forum might read a thread, and perhaps get the wrong idea about what is allowed and what unquestionably isn't. And as these tax issues are coming to dominate this message board, I believe it is important to be absolutely clear on that point. Here are the links to current late return policies:

• 1. Self Assesment Late Returns.
  
  2. Company Tax Late Returns.

Good luck with your appeal. I don't think you are going to get much in writing from the HMRC, but definitely try.

[noajthan]

...

As a law abiding person I am with in my right to file a tax late, As filing tax late is not classified as evasion,
...

There are two frameworks of rules in play, serving different purposes (for HMRC & HO) and implemented through different legislation.
In the immigration context, it should be obvious that filing tax late clearly may be (& often is) classified as deception.

[vinny]

See also cases.

E.g. Balajigari v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673 (16 April 2019).

Tier 1 (General): Perspectives on Paragraph 322(5) and ILR

Tax discrepancies and paragraph 322(5) refusals: what are they and how to challenge them

New Home Office guidance on refusing settlement over tax discrepancies

Accountants taking the blame for tax discrepancies should give evidence in person > Abbasi (rule 43; para 322(5): accountants' evidence) Pakistan [2020] UKUT 27 (IAC) (8 January 2020)

Court of Appeal lowers the bar for refusing tax discrepancy cases

[motoaxis]

Hi All

I'm in a similar boat too. My ILR has got refused due to the same problem.

As per my knowledge or the information I have gathered through the other forums. In most cases 322(5) is being removed after AR, however they still sticking with their original decision due to 19(i) and 19(J) and 245cd(g).

I'm not sure what difference it is going to be when we are going to JR without 322(5).

I have got a question. Can anyone answer it please.

Can I apply for JR and go back home ? Does it make any difference in the judgement ?
Without a job it will cost me a lot to stay until I receive the judgement which might take upto 6months --12months

Thanks

[f317633]

...

As a law abiding person I am with in my right to file a tax late, As filing tax late is not classified as evasion,
...

There are two frameworks of rules in play, serving different purposes (for HMRC & HO) and implemented through different legislation.
In the immigration context, it should be obvious that filing tax late clearly may be (& often is) classified as deception.

The question is why should it be considered as deception? immigration rules cannot be contradicting to the rules set by other government agencies. Either the system is flawed or HO is not bothered about anything. They are acting as if they are supreme and what they decide or what they judge is final and flawless. Is this the case?

[ouflak1]

mmigration rules cannot be contradicting to the rules set by other government agencies. Either the system is flawed or HO is not bothered about anything.

What you are seeing is the implementation of a concept known as "Checks and Balances". This is a common feature of Western democratic style governments. The Home Office, effectively acting as the Executive branch, is making judgments based on a formulaic and usually obvious set of rules. Since they have neither the time nor the resources to delve into intricate, detailed tax issues, they simply offer their decisions purely from the perspective of an immigration stance. If there is a JR, it is up to the Judicial branch to allow for elaboration and here arguments about interpretation and how the rules should be applied. Parliament, acting as the Legislative branch, can then make rules and laws in response to either other branch, or further elaborate on existing ones. It is through this process that a living dynamic government can function. It might seem like there are contradictions, and at times there definitely are, but it works itself out eventually.

[teddy0409]

Thank you senior members like noajthan and ouflak1, Your time is appreciated, Your input are noted, Regards Anan

[hammad1224]

My cousin got his ILR after a refusal on s322(5). His visa was refused in Jan 16 and he got his ILR last week. He amended his tax returns and accounts from a new accountant.

"How and when the 'Evidential Flexibility Policy' is applied during anILR application processing by a case worker in LIVERPOOL PEO"

A bit of history. Before the EFP policy came into being, there were many many complaints by both case workers and applicants that some applications couldn't be decided rationally because of the strict nature of the interpretation of the rules in place.

From the case worker's perspective:

• 1. Simple errors such as name misspellings or a small but critical line not filled in, meant they had to refuse the application, sometimes painfully knowing full well that this could lead to devastating situations for the applicant.
  
  2. Much more rarely, situations where you, me, and anybody else with any common sense whatsoever could see that the applicant should not be granted leave or entry, but because of the rigidness of the decision process, they had to approve the application anyway.
  
  3. Straightforward applications having bloated and confusing amounts of documentation supplied with them making it difficult, and at times impossible, to sort out the basic details that were needed to actually make a decision.

That was all exacerbated by the fact that the rules didn't allow for 'new evidence' in the appeals, leading to mystifying (and costly for the government) drawn-out cases for trivial issues with an application.

From the applicant's perspective:

• 1. Simple mistakes causing costly, sometimes idiotic refusals.
  
  2. Having evidence on hand, literally available instantly if so requested, yet not being able to present it.
  
  3. Unrealistically intense pressure to ensure that an application was absolutely perfect and fail safe, leading to situations where loads of useless, sometimes counter productive, evidence was supplied with otherwise very straightforward applications.

One of the responses to these complaints and glaring problems was the Evidential Flexibility Policy. It allowed case workers to request for correct details, ask for supplementary evidence, and give the applicant some small window to sort out readily fixable problems. It released the case worker from the pressure of rigid inflexible rules deciding a case instead of common sense. Obviously it allowed applicants to quickly fix any problem in a reasonable manner. This has been a blessing for everybody IMO.

There were other pressures at work here, most notably the overwhelming number of appeals that simply had to be reduced by any means as they were clogging up the system, making it difficult for everybody. But that's perhaps a side story.

The point is that EFP was never meant to be yet another draconian enforced policy that had to be applied to all applications no matter how complicated they might be. Indeed that would be a contradiction to the whole spirit of EFP! And tax issues can get messy... quick. I dare say that this is well outside the original scope of EFP. Hence the recommendations by moderators on this board that some unsuccessful applicants challenge the government in court to prove implications of dishonesty, especially when it obvious that they've got a case. That kind of challenge truly allows an applicant to really make their case.

I don't want to dissuade you. But I think that if you were hoping that EFP was meant to immediately give an applicant free reign to sort out any application, that potentially has any myriad of very complicated issues, as they saw fit, you might not get the result you are hoping for. EFP was meant for the accidentally forgotten LITUK test result or a missing digit off the end of a credit card number. It was not meant for a flurry of notarized accounting statements and HMRC acknowledgements and cover letters explaining discrepancies in unmet legal obligations.

[ouflak1]

My cousin got his ILR after a refusal on s322(5). His visa was refused in Jan 16 and he got his ILR last week. He amended his tax returns and accounts from a new accountant.

Did he reapply? Did win an appeal? Did get a JR in his favor?

[teddy0409]

Dear Ouflak1,
Hope you are doing fine, I have now received from HMRC in writing as discussed earlier in this post,(Good Behaviour in Tax point of view)

http://www.immigrationboards.com/indefi ... 12492.html

Kind Regards,
Anan

[phalanichi]

just to give some hope.

My husband's appeal got granted in FTT and we received decision after 4 weeks.

My husband's appeal got granted on humanitarian grounds, we have no kids yet, and has just sent over letter to hmrc for ammendments after refusal and got acknowledgement.

reason for refusal 322(5), 276(b) and he was considered overstayed for 3 months in 2013 as he tried a couple of times to send application by post but was not getting biometrics letter.

[vinny]

Breaking News - Home Office admits errors for 322(5)

See also

Khan - New Perspectives on Paragraph 322(5) and ILR

Two successful judicial reviews in “paragraph 322(5)” tax cases > Dadzie [2018] CSOH 128 and Oji [2018] CSOH 127.

[BSatti]

Me and my husband won appeal in FTT in October 2018 (Husband's SET(LR) refused due to tax amendments)
However HO appealed against the decision which was refused on 13th December. They then appealed to upper tribunal on 14th January, almost two weeks past the deadline. We hope upper tribunal rejects the appeal being out of time.

[vinny]

Home Office 'wrecked my life' with misuse of immigration law.

[vinny]

Major judgment finds Home Office policy of ejecting migrants over tax discrepancies “legally flawed” > Balajigari v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673 (16 April 2019)

[vinny]

New Home Office guidance on refusing settlement over tax discrepancies

[vinny]

Accountants taking the blame for tax discrepancies should give evidence in person > Abbasi (rule 43; para 322(5): accountants' evidence) Pakistan [2020] UKUT 27 (IAC) (8 January 2020)

[vinny]

Court of Appeal lowers the bar for refusing tax discrepancy cases