Loan charge review - report and outcome Loan charge review - report and outcome
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 47
  1. #1

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    2,763

    Default Loan charge review - report and outcome

    The report is out.

    Report on time limits and the disguised remuneration loan charge - GOV.UK

    Stripped of the same tired "justifications", shown time and again to be based on skewed statistics and a desire in HMRC to cover up their inept administration, it says that the loan charge is justified and proportionate.

    I disagree.

    I consider it to be a deliberate attack on the weakest link in the chain of those who benefited the least from the schemes.

    I consider HMRC to be cynical in their choice of target because they know that they are untouchable and subject to at best lickspittle oversight.

    I'm sure we'll pick over the multiple inaccuracies and unfairnesses in the days to come.

    Now though, all contractors need to turn their attention to the loan charge which is very real.

    The only guaranteed means to avoid the charge are to settle or to repay the loan in real money. (repaying it via some exchange of obligations which does not see money enter and leave your bank account, is going to be challenged).

    Perhaps the next best is a litigation that seeks to challenge on the grounds of application of the law to the circumstances (and yes, I mean Big Group).

    Then perhaps a judicial review on the ability of HMRC to operate it appropriately or correctly.

    Then perhaps emigrating to the moon.

    Then perhaps think about (and reject) a scheme.

    Remember that loan charge or not, the underlying liability on open years still needs to be agreed at some point, in some manner. That may be agreement or as a Judge decides, but it has to happen.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  2. #2

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    50,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    I consider it to be a deliberate attack on the weakest link in the chain of those who benefited the least from the schemes.
    People who benefited the most (those who avoided paying taxes) are the ones under "attack", precisely because they were the main beneficiaries.

    The loan charge is simply the tax that was meant to be paid in the first place.

  3. #3

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    People who benefited the most (those who avoided paying taxes) are the ones under "attack", precisely because they were the main beneficiaries.

    The loan charge is simply the tax that was meant to be paid in the first place.
    a) not the time

    b) you know what he means

  4. #4

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    People who benefited the most (those who avoided paying taxes) are the ones under "attack", precisely because they were the main beneficiaries.

    The loan charge is simply the tax that was meant to be paid in the first place.
    Yet Barrowman has two super yachts and I don't even have one.

    2 No it isn't. It is what they think they are owed despite all legal evidence to the contrary. Never mind all the tax being lumped into one year to increase margins by over 50%.

  5. #5

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    2,763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WalterWhite View Post
    a) not the time

    b) you know what he means
    May have avoided tax (arguable) but still paid the equivalent to promoters.

    End clients saved at least 12.8%/13.8%

    Agencies still got paid.

    Promoters received fees.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  6. #6

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    People who benefited the most (those who avoided paying taxes) are the ones under "attack", precisely because they were the main beneficiaries.

    The loan charge is simply the tax that was meant to be paid in the first place.
    Some recently did it for IR35 protection for April 2020. With a partner as a director, and pension contributions - the financial difference wasn't worth getting excited about.

  7. #7

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    50,419

    Default

    Dear webberg, you are an incredibly impressive lawyer, if I ever got in (related to your field of work) trouble I'd be very happy for you to represent me (not that it's ever going to happen), and I totally agree with you that the penalties against promoters of schemes are nowhere near enough, however the fact is that the main beneficiaries (by value) of those "schemes" were the people who "avoided" paying 40/45% tax. Only AFTER the loan charge they stop being the main beneficiaries.

    If you had a lawsuit against promoters/anybodyinthatcategory for misseling then I'd be totally on your side, but you are fighting an impossible battle against HMRC, who also got no choice but to make sure people who benefited the most don't get away with it.
    Last edited by AtW; 27th March 2019 at 01:43.

  8. #8

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    Dear webberg, you are an incredibly impressive lawyer, if I ever got in (related to your field of work) trouble I'd be very happy for you to represent me (not that it's ever going to happen), and I totally agree with you that the penalties against promoters of schemes are nowhere near enough, however the fact is that the main beneficiaries (by value) of those "schemes" were the people who "avoided" paying 40/45% tax. Only AFTER the loan charge they stop being the main beneficiaries.

    If you had a lawsuit against promoters/anybodyinthatcategory for misseling then I'd be totally on your side, but you are fighting an impossible battle against HMRC, who also got no choice but to make sure people who benefited the most don't get away with it.
    Incorrect, and unfortunately sounds like your swallowing all the HMRC propaganda about us all living Wolf of Wall Street lives.

    In some cases (mine) the difference between this scheme - and withdrawing dividends, expenses, salary and pension was minimal. I think from the £20k I saved over 2 years, I now have a tax bill of almost £100k + interest. Not including the £30k+ i'd paid in promoter fees, and more for the divi tax, NI, etc.

    My benefit was ir35 protection, or so i thought. Not financial. I'm being told not to pay the £20k i saved, but to pay the £100k + interest. How much is the promoter stumping up who took 15%? Zero.

  9. #9

    Fingers like lightning

    stonehenge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    536

    Default

    HMRC say 50,000 users avoided £3.2bn.

    It's hard to gauge how much promoters would have made from that but I doubt it would be much less than £1bn.

    The promoter of the scheme I used certainly did very nicely out of it. At one point they were raking in £1m/month from around 1000 users. It paid for a country estate, villa in Barbados, villa in south of France, luxury yacht, Bentley convertible etc.
    Last edited by stonehenge; 27th March 2019 at 08:32.

  10. #10

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    2,763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    Dear webberg, you are an incredibly impressive lawyer, if I ever got in (related to your field of work) trouble I'd be very happy for you to represent me (not that it's ever going to happen), and I totally agree with you that the penalties against promoters of schemes are nowhere near enough, however the fact is that the main beneficiaries (by value) of those "schemes" were the people who "avoided" paying 40/45% tax. Only AFTER the loan charge they stop being the main beneficiaries.

    If you had a lawsuit against promoters/anybodyinthatcategory for misseling then I'd be totally on your side, but you are fighting an impossible battle against HMRC, who also got no choice but to make sure people who benefited the most don't get away with it.
    Clearly you are entitled to your view as I am to disagree.

    A few points of clarification though.

    I'm not a lawyer. I'm a tax specialist.

    Our legal team is in the process of preparing claims against the parties who were involved in selling these products.

    I obviously disagree that I have an impossible battle. I believe I have a realistic chance.

    All of the above and more I'm happy to debate, but not on this thread please.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

Posting Permissions

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