Can the S58 affected also have this please!!

[smalldog]

Lots of focus on Loan retrospection. I hope they get this over turned as all those affected by S58 2008 should have the same rights! We declared all on our SA's, we were hit with a 2008 retro tax but because were not nurses or social workers somehow its ok?

2019 Loan Charge: What the Lords Recommend to HMRC

Recommendation 1
We recommend that the loan charge substitue with: Section 58 2008 FA, legislation is amended to exclude from the charge those made in years where taxpayers disclosed their participation in these schemes to HMRC or which would otherwise have been “closed”.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Agreed, the LC is not the first bit of retro tax law.... nor the last I fear.

[GammaMadrid]

S58 cannot have it both ways. They cannot say nothing on their situation - then expect people to rally round. Though it is odd hearing loan chargers moaning about retrospective legislation - the writing was clearly on the wall in 2008 and anyone who used a loan after that date is asking for it.

Clearly S58 did not bother making submissions which LCAG did.

What good will this thread do while on CUK?

Anyway, Lords recommendation has had no effect. Maybe you should wait until HMRC behaviour changes?

Care to tell us how S58 is going? When is the tribunal?

[ChimpMaster]

S58 cannot have it both ways. They cannot say nothing on their situation - then expect people to rally round. Though it is odd hearing loan chargers moaning about retrospective legislation - the writing was clearly on the wall in 2008 and anyone who used a loan after that date is asking for it.

Clearly S58 did not bother making submissions which LCAG did.

What good will this thread do while on CUK?

Anyway, Lords recommendation has had no effect. Maybe you should wait until HMRC behaviour changes?

Care to tell us how S58 is going? When is the tribunal?

You have no idea what you're talking about. HMRC don't care about 2008, they don't care about open or closed years, they don't care if people die over this. They only care about maximising their tax intake.

If you want to learn the truth then speak to LCAG.

[GammaMadrid]

You have no idea what you're talking about. HMRC don't care about 2008, they don't care about open or closed years, they don't care if people die over this. They only care about maximising their tax intake.

If you want to learn the truth then speak to LCAG.

In the part I highlighted I did not mention HMRC.

In fact I only mentioned HMRC when suggesting S58ers are premature.

Do you think LCAG care about 2008?

[webberg]

The circumstances and reasoning behind section 58 FA 2008 and the loan charge are totally different.

Section 58 was introduced to prevent the abuse of the double tax treaty between the IOM and the UK. Double tax treaties are governed by international law and normally over ride domestic legisaltion. The schemes that took advantage of the lacunae (loophole) were never contemplated by those who drafted the law and the priority of law meant that without correction, the abuse would continue.

Further, policy on double tax is, as the name suggests, to prevent double taxation. It is not there to allow no tax to be paid.

The Government therefore moved against the loophole and plugged it. The plugged it from the beginning of the treaty because again international law allows for a sovereign state to use retrospection where there was never any intention to create a loophole but it is there anyway.

The loan charge is there to protect HMRC from criticism that it has failed to use the laws it had in 2000, 2001, 2002 etc to stop salary by way of loans and failed to take action in time. They claim that the law always said that the loans were taxable (not sure that's true) and therefore the only reason we have not seen enquiry and enquiry is that HMRC failed to open them.

Realising that this situation would treat some taxpayers in a different way from others and that enquiries would go on for ever and that actually individuals are not the taxpayers that the Supreme Court considers are liable, they needed a fix. The loan charge is it.

The loan charge is retrospective but for entirely different reasons.

Comparisons with section 58 is a bit like comparing apples and ferrets.

[stonehenge]

Section 58 was introduced to prevent the abuse of the double tax treaty between the IOM and the UK. Double tax treaties are governed by international law and normally over ride domestic legisaltion. The schemes that took advantage of the lacunae (loophole) were never contemplated by those who drafted the law and the priority of law meant that without correction, the abuse would continue.

Changing the law prospectively would have stopped the schemes.

There was no need to make it retrospective.

[webberg]

Changing the law prospectively would have stopped the schemes.

There was no need to make it retrospective.

I would not disagree with statement.

[GammaMadrid]

Section 58 was introduced to prevent the abuse of the double tax treaty between the IOM and the UK. Double tax treaties are governed by international law and normally over ride domestic legisaltion. The schemes that took advantage of the lacunae (loophole) were never contemplated by those who drafted the law and the priority of law meant that without correction, the abuse would continue.

Further, policy on double tax is, as the name suggests, to prevent double taxation. It is not there to allow no tax to be paid.

The Government therefore moved against the loophole and plugged it. The plugged it from the beginning of the treaty because again international law allows for a sovereign state to use retrospection where there was never any intention to create a loophole but it is there anyway.

The loophole was known when the law was drafted. Norman Lamont was asked about it in parliament by Alex Salmond.

Loan chargers should read up on S58. In fact, they should have read up in 2008 and saved themselves years of grief. I do feel sorry for anyone who used a loan scheme prior to 2008.