• 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!

Loan charge review - Government response is here

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

    #31
    Originally posted by PeterF View Post
    Everything of mine is/was pre-2010, so initially this sounded like reasonable and exciting news. But:

    2.12 While loans made before 9 December 2010 are removed from the scope of the Loan Charge, the underlying tax liability for loans made prior to this date remains. HMRC will continue to pursue those liabilities through enquiries and assessments, and where necessary through litigation. HMRC will publish updated settlement terms for all taxpayers in this position as set out above.

    2.13 The Government will also invest in a new HMRC team to conclude enquiries and bring in the tax due from people who in the past have used DR schemes, and other forms of tax avoidance. The team will engage positively with those who wish to settle their affairs and will have the resources and skills to pursue cases to tribunal and through the courts where that is necessary to collect what is due. This will ensure people who entered into DR avoidance schemes before 9 December 2010 still pay the tax due and make their contribution to funding public services. Further detail will be announced at the Budget.

    Yeah, nevermind.....
    Originally posted by webberg View Post
    This should not be a surprise.

    The loan charge never was an end to itself. It was always a means to "draw a line under" DR schemes and was more akin to a generally applicable APN than anything else.

    I know also that it was never a popular view but we have been saying this pretty much since the loan charge emerged.

    Not a surprise if the tax years are Protected, indeed.

    If you have Unprotected years pre-2010 then HMRC would have to prove Fraud to be able to go back that far.

    Have I understood this correctly?

    Comment


      #32
      I have 5 loans pre-2010, all with enquiries open. I have had an APN on one of them. I was thinking about carrying on with litigation but am worried that HMRC will simply APN for the rest. Am I right in thinking that HMRC could just say well we cannot get you with the Loan charge so we will just get round that with APNs and think about litigation in our own good time???

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by ChimpMaster View Post
        Not a surprise if the tax years are Protected, indeed.

        If you have Unprotected years pre-2010 then HMRC would have to prove Fraud to be able to go back that far.

        Have I understood this correctly?
        I think that based on the report and the context of the various recommendations, you have reason to be correct.

        The news that HMRC will resource a team to target pre 2010 schemes (something that they had many years ago and was called the "legacy" team before they archived a lot of information thinking that the loan charge would be a panacea) is worrying.

        It should be simple.

        Did HMRC issue a tax return - yes/no?
        If yes, was a section 9A enquiry opened within 12 months of that return being filed - yes/no?
        If yes, then the year is open/protected and enquiries can continue (actually more like restarted after being allowed to go dormant).
        If no tax return or no enquiry, did HMRC issue a discovery assessment - yes/no?
        If yes, then it has to be settled in some manner.
        If no, can HMRC issue a discovery assessment now - yes/no?
        Well even the extended discovery period of 6 years will be too late for most.
        Has the taxpayer committed a fraud (20 years retrospection) - I would say that is very difficult.

        For me that leaves two possible angles for this HMRC team.

        First, can they persuade Treasury/Government to make retrospective law?

        Given the implied and sometimes explicit criticism of HMRC in the design and implementation of the loan charge in the report, it would be a brave MP who backed such a move.

        Second, (and more worrying for me), is whether the 12 year enquiry period for matters involving non UK elements can be applied.

        If so, (and many schemes have offshore elements), then years from 2007/08 are technically still in time.

        We're also perhaps looking at the "requirement to correct" rules and a few more obscure parts of the TMA 1970.

        Also, no mention in the recommendations as to the IHT position which is disappointing.
        Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

        (No, me neither).

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Forsythia View Post
          I have 5 loans pre-2010, all with enquiries open. I have had an APN on one of them. I was thinking about carrying on with litigation but am worried that HMRC will simply APN for the rest. Am I right in thinking that HMRC could just say well we cannot get you with the Loan charge so we will just get round that with APNs and think about litigation in our own good time???
          Only if you allow that.

          APN is not settlement of open/protected years any more than the loan charge is.

          An APN is just a guess at what might be owed if HMRC can win their argument. If they lose that argument, then the APN falls and you get the money back.

          How will you know if they fail in their argument? You go through the litigation process.

          APN also comes with conditions. If you have years pre 2010 with no APN then I'm guessing that these conditions are failed and that you will never see an APN for them. I'm guessing but perhaps your scheme did not have a DOTAS disclosure?

          Also litigation timetables are NOT determined by HMRC. The process at Tribunal is designed so that you can go for hearings when YOU are ready and you do not (and should not) be dancing to HMRC tunes and time signatures on this.

          Now is the time to be pressing even harder for litigation because HMRC has been shown to have been at best incompetent and at worst heartless and acting outside of rules designed to protect taxpayers. What do we think a Tribunal Judge might think of that?
          Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

          (No, me neither).

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Iliketax View Post
            Unless you've already gone and got them released...

            If you've done that you might need to do some more lobbying.
            They depreciated to close to zero and the remaining balance of a few hundred pounds as waived (actually it was not sterling that was waived but it was of that magnitude) in 2005-ish. For most loans the trust was also closed pre-2010 also. Where does that leave me? The loan charge was the only legislation that ignored currency devaluation as far as I’m aware - it magicked back my loans.
            Last edited by starstruck; 20 December 2019, 18:07.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by starstruck View Post
              They depreciated to close to zero and the remaining balance of a few hundred pounds as waived (actually it was not sterling that was waived but it was of that magnitude) in 2005-ish. For most loans the trust was also closed pre-2010 also. Where does that leave me? The loan charge was the only legislation that ignored currency devaluation as far as I’m aware - it magicked back my loans.
              I will suggest that based on my investigations of many schemes in which "depreciation" features, the alleged reduction in the loan value created by the use of non sterling currency is itself a form of "magic".

              In most cases I think it would be difficult to argue that the depreciation was anything more than a slight of hand vanishing trick that was designed to deceive the eye but which was not "real".

              That part of the loan charge that denies the effect of depreciation is not, so far as I can see, removed by the report or the Government.

              So, I would argue that you should assume that the loan charge remains a matter to be dealt with for you because the falsehood is in the "depreciation".
              Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

              (No, me neither).

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by webberg View Post
                I will suggest that based on my investigations of many schemes in which "depreciation" features, the alleged reduction in the loan value created by the use of non sterling currency is itself a form of "magic".

                In most cases I think it would be difficult to argue that the depreciation was anything more than a slight of hand vanishing trick that was designed to deceive the eye but which was not "real".

                That part of the loan charge that denies the effect of depreciation is not, so far as I can see, removed by the report or the Government.

                So, I would argue that you should assume that the loan charge remains a matter to be dealt with for you because the falsehood is in the "depreciation".

                But my loans are all closed years pre-2010 - why are you saying the loan charge still applies? You should be posting this on the BG forum because on there people are thinking their closed years pre 2010 are now out of scope.
                Last edited by starstruck; 20 December 2019, 18:46.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by webberg View Post
                  I will suggest that based on my investigations of many schemes in which "depreciation" features, the alleged reduction in the loan value created by the use of non sterling currency is itself a form of "magic".

                  In most cases I think it would be difficult to argue that the depreciation was anything more than a slight of hand vanishing trick that was designed to deceive the eye but which was not "real".

                  That part of the loan charge that denies the effect of depreciation is not, so far as I can see, removed by the report or the Government.

                  So, I would argue that you should assume that the loan charge remains a matter to be dealt with for you because the falsehood is in the "depreciation".
                  Regardless it is pre 2010. Not saying they can't stir up some crap by finding excuses to open enquiries but they fall into that half of the draw.

                  I suspect I was in the same or very similar scheme as the OP. If there was deception then it was by the accountants and the QC, I have no knowledge of anything other than what I was told was happening. PAYE transfer rules also have to apply and they, IMO, couldn't be said to have met and is one of your key tactics I am led to believe.
                  Last edited by dammit chloe; 20 December 2019, 19:08.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    AML SA Returns

                    AML did all my SA returns between 2012 - 2016. Does anyone know if the way these returns were filled in by AML made it clear that an avoidance scheme was being used?

                    What classify's the avoidance scheme being fully disclosed on a return? putting the name of the scheme provider?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by starstruck View Post
                      But my loans are all closed years pre-2010 - why are you saying the loan charge still applies?
                      He must have missed that in your post.
                      Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X