Thread by @keithmgordon

@FrancesCapewell I have a number of initial thoughts to the letter.

First, the letter is selective as to the points it addresses. Has it avoided the even more difficult questions?

@FrancesCapewell Secondly, the paragraph beginning “The Supreme Court” is a gross oversimplification (at best) and just plain wrong (at worst).

@FrancesCapewell The discussion of DOTAS is equally lacking in candour.

First, it is my understanding that HMRC have belatedly accepted that some of these arrangements did NOT require disclosure.
...

@FrancesCapewell In any event, the Hyrax case is an example of a very late scheme where a more robust attitude was taken by the promoters because of the 2014 APN legislation which made voluntary disclosure unattractive. ...

@FrancesCapewell The Hyrax decision makes it totally clear that all previous versions of the arrangement WERE disclosed. HMRC are aligning two facts in order to create a misleading impression. Remember that the false claim of “HMRC approved” made only sense if the scheme had been disclosed.

@FrancesCapewell The sentence beginning “The settlement figures referred to by campaigners …” gives the initial impression that the campaigners have somehow made up the figures.

@FrancesCapewell These figures are of course those cited by HMRC themselves in attempts to justify their actions. All that's happening is that they've been analysed, questioned and cited back. HMRC seem to accept that these figures are no longer relevant as they'll be updating them in due course.

@FrancesCapewell At least the letter acknowledges for the first time that HMRC’s helpline does not even purport to offer mental support. My understanding is that HMRC have previously tried to say that their helpline was established for this purpose.

@FrancesCapewell Of course, I cannot comment more fully without having seen the prior correspondence. However, the impression I get is that this is a further example of the Treasury stonewalling and failing to address the real concerns.