Click on the image to read it. Here is a fantastic example of sheer arrogance and disregard of the law from HMRC.
"HMRC is not able to provide the legal certainty you demand"
You what? I was not aware that there are different degrees or levels of legal certainty? Is the legal certainty requested different to any other? Either HMRC give legal certainty or they do not.
"HMRC must have the freedom to respond quickly to changing scenarios and their right to do so has been granted in law"
Bullshit. What about fairness, justice, rights, proportionality and legal certainty - all of these are missing in HMRC? Where does it say in law that these do not apply?
"HMRC are satisfied that their methods are legal and indeed have been successful where their methods have been challenged in the courts"
By their own admission, companies on extended are not able to challenge their process in the courts because no decision has been reached. (Other than a Judicial Review which we all know, HMRC make decisions on the doorstep). Each case is different with varying points of law and circumstances and HMRC should not be applying this sentence broadly (in this context) where legal certainty has been infringed.
If anyone else has any more examples of breathtaking arrogance from HMRC, then do get in touch so we can expose their contradictions and tyranny. Email me firstname.lastname@example.org