Cannot decide whether or not to settle Cannot decide whether or not to settle - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChimpMaster View Post
    No my loans are > 10 years old so I have sparse information on them. All years are closed i.e. no open enquiry.

    HMRC know my salary from that time because they have the tax return data. So they should also have the BIK data and I thought would have been able to use that to calculate the loan amounts. But instead they took the lazy and harsh option of just multiplying my salary by a random 6x multiplier, and telling me that was the loan amount they were going to tax me on. Those loan amounts are more than I earned on the whole contract for each of my tax years!
    so you did not supply any figures? not even estimates?

    May be you can get hold of the contracts you signed at the time showing your daily rates, that will help your case.

  2. #12

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    2,466

    Default Big Group and IHT

    Big Group and IHT.

    It is unfair to say that we don't know the IHT answer.

    We know what HMRC's answer is and we know that we disagree with it.

    HMRC's view is that if money is said to have gone into a trust then prima facie a liability to IHT is possible. There may be some relief available in terms of the lifetime allowance but all other reliefs detailed in the IHT law is denied (without a reason being given).

    For example, money placed into trust and withdrawn within 30 days (pretty much most trusts we see) can be exempt from trust charges. We have put this to HMRC who have said "no" without explaining why.

    Our view is that in order to tax money claimed to be paid as a loan - as income - then there needs to be an entitlement to that money arising to the individual. That entitlement is the trigger for an IT liability. (Who owes the tax is a different question).

    If therefore the individual is entitled to the money, then for the trust and trustee to have control of the funds, there must exist an instruction from the individual to the employer/payer to pay the trust. We have not seen one.

    Further, if the trustee claims to dispose of money by way of loan when they were never entitled to the money is potentially ultra vires and as such could be ignored by a Court.

    For these (and other) reasons we believe that in many cases, there is no IHT because there is no legal trust.

    To prove that there is HMRC needs to argue that the documents are the only way of interpreting the payment flows. This is a literal interpretation of the situation as opposed to establishing the facts, which may be very different and which are used as the bedrock of the income tax case.

    We have poined out to HMRC that they are arguing facts over documents for IT and the opposite for IHT and do they not see that this is impossible? They say they see no conflict.

    So we do know what we think the IHT position is but HMRC refuse to engage in a discussion and we will perhaps find ourselves in Court.

    It is of course part of HMRC strategy to drag every issue through a Court so that taxpayers run out of money or become so disillusioned or cynical about the situation that they give up.

  3. #13

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    Big Group and IHT.

    It is unfair to say that we don't know the IHT answer.

    We know what HMRC's answer is and we know that we disagree with it.

    HMRC's view is that if money is said to have gone into a trust then prima facie a liability to IHT is possible. There may be some relief available in terms of the lifetime allowance but all other reliefs detailed in the IHT law is denied (without a reason being given).

    For example, money placed into trust and withdrawn within 30 days (pretty much most trusts we see) can be exempt from trust charges. We have put this to HMRC who have said "no" without explaining why.

    Our view is that in order to tax money claimed to be paid as a loan - as income - then there needs to be an entitlement to that money arising to the individual. That entitlement is the trigger for an IT liability. (Who owes the tax is a different question).

    If therefore the individual is entitled to the money, then for the trust and trustee to have control of the funds, there must exist an instruction from the individual to the employer/payer to pay the trust. We have not seen one.

    Further, if the trustee claims to dispose of money by way of loan when they were never entitled to the money is potentially ultra vires and as such could be ignored by a Court.

    For these (and other) reasons we believe that in many cases, there is no IHT because there is no legal trust.

    To prove that there is HMRC needs to argue that the documents are the only way of interpreting the payment flows. This is a literal interpretation of the situation as opposed to establishing the facts, which may be very different and which are used as the bedrock of the income tax case.

    We have poined out to HMRC that they are arguing facts over documents for IT and the opposite for IHT and do they not see that this is impossible? They say they see no conflict.

    So we do know what we think the IHT position is but HMRC refuse to engage in a discussion and we will perhaps find ourselves in Court.

    It is of course part of HMRC strategy to drag every issue through a Court so that taxpayers run out of money or become so disillusioned or cynical about the situation that they give up.
    So to clarify a bit, I sent in the trust deeds via email asking for an opinion on what type of trust it is and what HMRC might ask for with regards to IHT, to which I got no reply and I also then posted the trust deeds on the BG forum also asking for an opinion and I was told it was not a priority to look at trust deeds. I also asked on the forum if anyone could recommend someone who could read the trust deeds and nobody did. So I don't know where to turn to get an answer. Hence my statement that I have had no joy getting any answers on IHT - and the last people I am going to ask is HMRC!

    The trust was closed in 2009 and I also emailed/uploaded to the BG forum the trust deed of termination. Scenario is as follows, loans in 2001-ish in foreign currency, loans depreciated over time to zero (let's say in 2007-ish). Loans written off by trust. Trust subsequently closed. I understand from various reading that there are two possible claims HMRC might make (a) that IHT is a based on a percentage of total loans from 2001 to present day, or (b) that IHT is based on 2001-2007 period (with interest on that amount from 2007, when loans were waived, to present day).

    I don't know if the trust is an s86 or what that means, I understand that people like yourselves don't think any IHT is due. I just want to know what are HMRC going to ask for. I think someone from a ccy depreciating scheme posted on here some time ago and said HMRC went for (a) after settlement. It would seem to me that (b) is more reasonable. The difference in amounts between (a) and (b) is huge!

    So if you have any experience of talking to HMRC about IHT and depreciating currencies and waived loans and closed trusts then I would hugely appreciate you letting me know; specifically what calculation HMRC used to make their IHT demand.

    As an aside I am still amazed that the loan charge applies to these loans when the lender is gone. All this "you can repay it if you wish" business that Mel keeps spouting is infuriating. How can I repay (a) a loan that has no balance and (b) to an entity that doesn't exist! Anyway, that's for another day. Today I really just want to get a grip on IHT.

  4. #14

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChimpMaster View Post

    I really hope LCAG manage to get Parliament to see the truth behind HMRC - pure evil and utter spite.
    The LCAG is about people like you, me and everyone else who are involved doing something and taking action. It is not about sitting about going the LCAG will achieve something as they are only guiding us how to take action for ourselves.
    I am proud to say that I have listened to LCAG, been to see my MP and brought her onboard. Any reasonable human being can see that the retrospective nature of the LC is a u justified and is bullying of the highest order. As a result letters are being sent to the chancellor an EDMs are being signed. The momentum is definitely building up...

    All these big promoters trying to argue their cases are legal are not right and are painting everyone else with a same brush. I think itís right these arrangements are outlawed, they are utter bull tulip, but ultimately that was not decided until 2017. So as per other tax avoidance arrangements such as IR35 there is a need to lay back a max 4 years. Iím happy with that... but seeing the impact on other people going back 20 years. Itís not right.

  5. #15

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    2,466

    Default

    Starstruck, please read the post I made.

    Our view is that in most cases the trust either does not exist for tax purposes or is at best a group of people who may or may not have had control of money but who were in any cases operating ultra vires.

    Consequently the "type of trust" is irrelevant as we say that there is no trust as defined in trust or tax law.

    HMRC disagree. They say that despite the evidence of the money never touching the trust or the "trustee" dealing with funds over which they had no authority, the legal documents should be respected, even if the income tax arguments are based on them being paper tigers.

    It logically follows if the trusts are ultra vires then the loan purported to be made by the trust is equally ineffective. (Or to use Mel Stride's words, "defective").

    Can I suggest that if you are a member of BG, then you ask these questions of us directly, not via a forum?

    I'm happy to continue here but it's not very efficient.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •