3 ms·

does it matter? there were some rules, that I was obeying, then there were some other rules, that were retroactively enforced. From my point of view, same same

• sokoloff 7y ago
  Yes, I think it does matter. It's arbitrary and capricious if HMRC can change the rules and retroactively apply them. It's totally reasonable (absent a statute of limitations lapse) IMO for them to go back and retroactively enforce rules that you weren't following once they detect that. (I would even entertain that it would be unreasonable for them to not do so.)
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • marcus_holmes 7y ago
    not from my point of view. I don't know all the tax rules (no-one does, not even a specialist tax consultant or a HMRC employee). The different between a rule that isn't enforced and not-a-rule is meaningless. The difference between a rule that isn't enforced and a rule that no-one is aware of is meaningless. Like I said, I obeyed all the rules, and then one was retroactively applied. It really doesn't matter whether the rule existed before or not. And yes, all tax authorities are capricious. The stories I heard about the ATO in Australia make the HMRC look like a model of predictable reliability.
    • peteretep 7y ago
      > I don't know all the tax rules Generally, in almost every country, you need to declare your income, including that from abroad. Claiming that knowing that is in any way equivalent to knowing all the tax rules is massively disingenuous.
      • marcus_holmes 7y ago
        This was income earned abroad. The rules are often different for that.