• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Suicides and the Loan Charge: Split from HMRC enquiries

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Really? That would seem like a way to get out of ever repaying a debt.
    I know someone that draws up this kind of policy. I can't remember if its because of the law or just regulations you have to follow to be a member of certain organisations.

    But big debt collection agencies will not pressurise someone into paying if the person makes them aware they are suicidal or have mental health issues.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by woohoo View Post
      I know someone that draws up this kind of policy. I can't remember if its because of the law or just regulations you have to follow to be a member of certain organisations.

      But big debt collection agencies will not pressurise someone into paying if the person makes them aware they are suicidal or have mental health issues.



      I think this is about debt collection agencies (but I may be wrong) and their high pressure tactics can be pretty disgraceful. But I wouldn't expect risk of suicide to stop the recovery of debts via the courts. Debtors' Gaols don't exist any more and the UK has liberal bankruptcy laws - bankruptcy tourism is "a thing" where people move from Ireland to UK to avail of a more liberal bankruptcy regime. I'm not saying it's easy to live through of course.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by cojak View Post
        This is not the place to muse over philosophical hair splitting RogerFederer.

        I will move these posts to General, you are welcome to post further there/here, but not in the HMRC Enquiries thread.
        My apologies. I haven't seen "the other side" of an argument in that forum before but didn't realise it was a specific policy.

        The reason my post was long is because I didn't want any doubt to emerge that suicide is a joke or something not to worry about.

        I have noticed that the people in that forum, who are - to be fair - the ones directly affected by the Loan Charge and other related charges from HMRC for using complex schemes to, effectively, evade tax, don't seem to realise that the fact they chose those schemes and knowingly (for the most part) entered those agreements needs offset with personal responsibility for choosing to enter them and then work out an agreeable arrangement with HMRC.

        In the past year I have read a lot of posts there that seem to indicate the term 'homeless' emerges because they over-stretched on a mortgage they could never really afford, engaged offshore tax schemes, basked in the extra monies and then bought a larger house, fancy cars and whatever else they fancied.

        There seems to be a gulf of understanding that the very fact they had all these bonus extras was because they engaged a complex arrangement to avoid paying their fair share of tax. A favourable arrangement that was compounded by their already favourable arrangement during those years from HMRC. A married couple with one as a contractor could claim lots of cash out of the company and pay very little tax. Why people then thought it ok to pay even less than this already small amount by using offshore schemes, well; their comeuppance is here.

        Nobody - including HMRC - wants dead bodies on their hands. Recognition of personal responsibility AND that the lifestyle was on ill-gotten gains means that yes, people, children, wives, husbands, people, will have to have a lesser lifestyle for a while until the debt and penalty is repaid. People who are suicidal lack perspective and I believe if the choices that the person made are clearly shown and that their life will still continue on, they will have less money for a while and may have to downsize their house, then most people are able to handle this. Those who are mentally affected need support and help, perhaps even therapy. It's harder to go from a seemingly rich lifestyle to a poorer one, but nobody is being truly made homeless by this policy; them having to sell their home to downsize or rent is a result of their poor financial choices in the past. What do you expect? HMRC will come along and not worry about the proceeds of ill-gotten gains, tell you not to worry about it and you don't owe any money? Even banks don't behave that way. See 2008 repossessions for clarification.

        I wish those who owe money all the best and similarly recognise that ending your life over this is absolutely not necessary and is a massive final over-reaction to a lack of perspective on the entire situation and how it arose in the first place. There are always reasons to live and overstating the impact of their offshoring and major tax avoidance by suggesting that pushed all those people to death seems an unfair comparison to me.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
          I think this is about debt collection agencies (but I may be wrong) and their high pressure tactics can be pretty disgraceful. But I wouldn't expect risk of suicide to stop the recovery of debts via the courts. Debtors' Gaols don't exist any more and the UK has liberal bankruptcy laws - bankruptcy tourism is "a thing" where people move from Ireland to UK to avail of a more liberal bankruptcy regime. I'm not saying it's easy to live through of course.
          I agree and haven't said that HMRC couldn't pursue longer repayment terms or work with individuals to arrange a plausible solution. It seems HMRC don't want to be seen, understandably, to be favouring one individual over another and have a blanket policy to enforce.

          There are many rich people I know who would struggle to half their outgoings because they are used to a certain expensive lifestyle. If forced to cut this lifestyle they would be upset and, I'm sure, some would enter a depressive state temporarily. If this was because of a debt owed this doesn't mean the debt and any attached penalty shouldn't be repaid, but does mean some leniency should be invoked.

          My issue and reason for initial post in that thread was because all I have ever read there is one side of the argument, which I think has made some of these people lose perspective of the issue and the personal responsibility they took when engaging complex offshore major tax avoidance (or, as I call it, 'evasion'), in order to lower an already very low tax bill.

          I do know somebody who had to sell his house to pay a very large bill and was, at the start, very upset, complaining about how the child would be affected, and all sorts. This person now has a standard flatpack house in new build estate and, as they always were, an average income. Their previous lifestyle was funded from evading tax and the word 'afford' didn't make sense in this context; they couldn't afford their previous house or lifestyle yet for years continued to evade tax. They now have the results of that yet still have a good life, by the standards of the UK.

          This is why I keep using the word 'perspective', as it is missing from many in that forum.

          Comment


            #15
            Whilst a lot of these points are good ones, the thing with this dispute that really upsets me ; and correct me if I'm wrong - is that its setting a law and then trying to retrospectively punish people for it.

            You just cant do that, law is law - If its illegal to wear a blue jacket today, you can't lock everyone up who wore one in the last 5 years- but somehow, somehow HMRC can.

            I'd much rather they get their revenue from people like Amazon, who literally must owe us billions, whilst HMRC buys AWS and pays them yearly for products!

            I just think its psychological warfare to chase 1 man bands on retrospective offences that were NOT illegal at the time, immoral, maybe - but not illegal.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
              This is why I keep using the word 'perspective', as it is missing from many in that forum.
              The loan charge, and other retrospective actions by the Government/HMRC, have made people feel like they're being victimised.

              They see it as unfair because, in their minds, what was supposed to happen is that HMRC should have dealt with the schemes (gone to court) under the law as it was, not created new laws to rig the outcome.

              When people have this victim mindset, perspective gets a bit lost.
              Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
                You just cant do that, law is law - If its illegal to wear a blue jacket today, you can't lock everyone up who wore one in the last 5 years- but somehow, somehow HMRC can.
                This a weak argument. There is good and bad "prospective" law, and good and bad retrospective law. Giving an example of bad retrospective law does not mean that all retrospective laws are bad, any more than giving a bad example of "prospective law means that all "prospective" law is bad. If Parliament introduced a law that it was illegal for women to leave their houses without the permission of a male guardian, this would be a bad "prospective" law. Does this mean that all "prospective" laws are bad? Of course not.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
                  The loan charge, and other retrospective actions by the Government/HMRC, have made people feel like they're being victimised.

                  They see it as unfair because, in their minds, what was supposed to happen is that HMRC should have dealt with the schemes (gone to court) under the law as it was, not created new laws to rig the outcome.

                  When people have this victim mindset, perspective gets a bit lost.
                  The irony is that for years the dodgy loan brigade were saying that it didn't matter whether or not their practice was unfair, as long as it was legal. Then Parliament introduces a law to address the unfairness, and suddenly it's all about fairness and not about the law.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
                    This a weak argument. There is good and bad "prospective" law, and good and bad retrospective law. Giving an example of bad retrospective law does not mean that all retrospective laws are bad, any more than giving a bad example of "prospective law means that all "prospective" law is bad. If Parliament introduced a law that it was illegal for women to leave their houses without the permission of a male guardian, this would be a bad "prospective" law. Does this mean that all "prospective" laws are bad? Of course not.
                    Well, the govt have repeatedly denied it is retrospective.

                    Out of interest, do you have an example of a good retrospective law?
                    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Furlough was retrospective

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X