AML 2019 Loan Charge

[ozzyo99]

Does anybody know what percentage of the total loan amount HMRC have been settling on?

Is the 25-35% range broadly correct? My exposure is I guess 75-85K.

I've got a rainy day pot with 30K I could pony up straight away, but the rest I would need time to pay, ideally 2-3 years.

The Vanquish Options proposal to me just sounds like a means of moving today's problem to tomorrow and then having the stress of awaiting a letter to drop through the door.

[jrock]

Ozzy - you just described exactly how I feel in your last paragraph. I too have young children, but I’ve let myself be dragged into this nonsense for I think 6 years, not that that’ll be any consolation. I’ve just registered also.

I’m in the same boat exposure of 6yrs with AML. I have young kids and live a simple life. Everything is on course to be messed up!

You say you have registered did you do this yourself directly with HMRC or via PTS?

[ozzyo99]

I received similar email this morning.
Phoned AML they said they know nothing about the emails but to follow the link.
Phoned Knox House they said PTS was part of the Knox group!
PTS phoned me and strongly denied they are part of the Knox group. PTS want a £250 registration fee, £500 fee for collecting all the information, which they already have as email says AML have appointed them to act on their behalf. Plus they want a 15% fee of the difference settlement fee and tax amount.

AML have basically washed their hands of this

They're some reasonably hefty fee's to consider.

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but AML's early posture was that of support, tribunal and defense of their model. I wonder if they ever considered properly executing matters of defense, or whether they sought to let people dig themselves deeper in the hole knowing full well they could walk? Now it seems many are in that said hole, they're offering businesses to 'help us' which are very obviously part of the IoM gentlemen's club and are directly or indirectly linked.

I think at this stage I'd sooner involve someone who had no biase and was objective minded.

[ozzyo99]

Ozzy - you just described exactly how I feel in your last paragraph. I too have young children, but I’ve let myself be dragged into this nonsense for I think 6 years, not that that’ll be any consolation. I’ve just registered also.

I’m in the same boat exposure of 6yrs with AML. I have young kids and live a simple life. Everything is on course to be messed up!

You say you have registered did you do this yourself directly with HMRC or via PTS?

I feel for you guys too. We were all hoodwinked it would seem and whilst I thought at the time it was too good, I never expected such retrospective action. I'm just glad I wasn't earning more at the time!


Does anybody know to what level HMRC are prepared to settle with by way of percentage ranges?

[LandRover]

Disgusting Tactics

We now see charges and further money making proposals, which are to put it mildly, disgusting.

The billionaire AML owner Mr Barrowman appears to have washed his hands and left ex-members to pick up the bills that HMRC will demand.

A huge racket took place, from scheme provider paying introduction commissions to Accountants and Tax Advisers, who scared many with threat of IR35 to entice us into these schemes.

Sadly we were the mugs who made many very rich. Some wouldn't like us to named as victims, but we are most definitely are.

[LandRover]

I feel for you guys too. We were all hoodwinked it would seem and whilst I thought at the time it was too good, I never expected such retrospective action. I'm just glad I wasn't earning more at the time!


Does anybody know to what level HMRC are prepared to settle with by way of percentage ranges?

Allegedly HMRC don't do deals unless your Google, Amazon or Starbucks!

Don't think you as an individual can negotiate with the HMRC machine.

[ozzyo99]

Allegedly HMRC don't do deals unless your Google, Amazon or Starbucks!

Don't think you as an individual can negotiate with the HMRC machine.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate in the case of voluntary settlement, or do you know better?

[wattsy]

just a thought

Following on from the Rangers ruling....

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favour of HMRC in the long running legal battle with what was the Rangers Football Club (“RFC”) prior to 2012.

Some of the most important consequences of the decision for companies which have used EBTs as part of their remuneration arrangements for employees and directors will be that;

HMRC will shortly start the process of issuing Follower Notices to collect PAYE and NIC liabilities in open enquiry cases or where Regulation 80 determinations are under appeal.
If the company has sufficient funds and settles the PAYE and NIC liabilities with HMRC, directors will incur a benefit in kind charge unless they “make good” the PAYE to their employer
If the company does not have sufficient funds to settle the liabilities in full, HMRC may seek to transfer the PAYE liability to the employee although it is currently unclear to what extent HMRC are lawfully able to do so under the existing PAYE regulations
In cases where HMRC cannot issue Follower Notices, PAYE and NIC liabilities may arise in April 2019 on any outstanding loans from an EBT and, based on HMRC proposals, it may be possible for April 2019 liabilities to be transferred from the employer to the employee
Although not a direct consequence of the Supreme Court decision, many EBTs are now approaching the date of their first 10 year anniversary and the parties which have an “interest” in the trust (i.e. the settlor, the trustee and any beneficiary who has benefited from trust property) will need to consider how they are going to settle any Inheritance Tax liabilities which arise under the relevant property provisions for discretionary trusts.

The highlighted above suggests the the Company(AML) will in first instances be liable for their employees's outstanding PAYE tax. As AML are currently in a Tier1 Tax tribunal with HMRC how can either side deny that AML are still in existence and are liable....

As i said...just a thought..I ..feel free to comment....

[falling apart]

Surely, surely, there is something we can do - whether that be ensure the liability stays on AML or get this in front of the highest courts, this surely can't actually proceed as we are being told...

Incidentally, I do have to say that it very mildly makes me feel better that at least I'm not alone in this...

Anyway, after my super helpful (not!) emails from AML, I've spoken with PTS who said what everyone else has already mentioned - £250 engagement fee, £500 to do the work, 15% of any savings (what a JOKE btw, especially since when I point blank asked them what their "relationship" was with AML and received silence on the phone for 5 seconds before she fumbled a response about being "asked to help"). Ergo, I'll use their service to confirm the numbers, but think that's it.

Then I spoke with Vanquish, and again, same story as others - an overly friendly guy trying to get me to immediately sign up for "option 3" (which absolutely sounds like everyone else has said - too good to be true and only delaying further issues down the line) whereby:
option 1, do nothing, pay 45% + interest + penalties etc
option 2, settle, pay approx. 25-35% of the total amount
option 3 , and I quote: "devised by Vanquish a mechanism to enable me to remove the loan charge before the deadline in 2019 via plans to replace current loan with an alternative lending company meaning we aren't in the scope of the new legislation" - whatever the hell that is!!! It would equate to 5%, it wouldn't have to be paid straight away, could be paid in March + £250 engagement fee + "costs"; and although "HMRC may retrospectively may change the legislation from 2016-2019, we guarantee to strive to save money and adapt to new legislation" oh but we can't provide you with any further detail because we don't want that option to be unavailable ergo we've all signed non-disclosures to not release the info".

Rrrrrrrrrrright.

I spoke with another tax adviser, Bates and Weston who said that the scope of this legislation change is that it is intiially an employer liability. Ergo, if AML processed the loans through payroll, the liability is on them, but they have the option/opportunity to transfer the liability onto me - which is clearly what they're doing to all of us and as someone else mentioned, buggered off into oblivion despite somehow still fighting the case at tribunal....

I will call WTT and Enterprise Tax back as well although was waiting to have the full picture in terms of ££, and my next stop then is find out what the law can offer us, as like I said before, surely there is something or someone who is going to clearly point out: we are victims - both of the legislative decision and from the likes of AML; retrospective legislation changes opens a can of worms, sets a dangerous precedent, and violates our rights; the long term effects will be wide and longlasting - and a burden on the very people who think they'll gain from screwing us now.

Thoughts? There must be a way...right??

[Shaun89]

Can’t decide a direction

Hi,
I also received the email from AML.

I am so torn what direction to go.
I have never received any bad letters from HMRC before or been investigated at all.

I initially thought I would go with the proposed scheme and only need to pay 10%. However in the worse case scenario I pay this and it makes no difference and I am still open to all the fines next April.

My only other option seems to be to register my interest to settle before May 30th.
However is it a mistake to volunteer my name to this list when Iv never been contacted by HMRC before????