Loan charge review - Government response is here

[Iliketax]

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.

If the "magic" happened before 6 April 2017 then there would have been no disguised remuneration charge. There may have been some other tax charge as a result of the "magic" but if HMRC are out of time then they are out of time. I've no idea what the "magic" was so can't comment on the time limits.

The key thing from your side is to resist any offer to formally release / write off the loan or have the liability transferred to someone else.

[DealorNoDeal]

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?

I believe a tribunal accepted that a DOTAS number on a return was sufficient disclosure. But then you would almost certainly have had enquiries opened, and subsequently received APNs. I'm betting AML did not register the scheme under DOTAS.

Without a DOTAS number, it is highly unlikely HMRC would deem anything on the return as "full disclosure". AML probably went for minimal (or non) disclosure of loans.

[BrilloPad]

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.....

It sounds like SonOfLoanCharge will be worse than LoanCharge. I expected the review to have no impact - not make it worse. Amyas is a total traitor.

[starstruck]

If the "magic" happened before 6 April 2017 then there would have been no disguised remuneration charge. There may have been some other tax charge as a result of the "magic" but if HMRC are out of time then they are out of time. I've no idea what the "magic" was so can't comment on the time limits.

The key thing from your side is to resist any offer to formally release / write off the loan or have the liability transferred to someone else.

Thanks - as I say the tiny amount of outstanding loan (following ccy depreciation) was waived in 2006 and the trust was closed. I have letters from the trust saying my loans are settled in full and in fact the trust is gone. This all happened circa-2006 - original loans 2001-ish.

I am also not aware of the "magic" (other than the LC reviving these loans and making them "outstanding"!). I believe Webberg believes they never purchased the actual foreign currency so it was all paper based depreciation. But I have seen no evidence either way and have stacks of paperwork detailing my loans in ccyX and the depreciation of ccyX, which matched real rates published at the time - so I have no reason to doubt the workings of the scheme and there is certainly no reason for me to challenge it either.

[starstruck]

It sounds like SonOfLoanCharge will be worse than LoanCharge. I expected the review to have no impact - not make it worse. Amyas is a total traitor.

Lots of discussion in lots of places but opinion seems to be this is for open enquiries.

[dammit chloe]

Thanks - as I say the tiny amount of outstanding loan (following ccy depreciation) was waived in 2006 and the trust was closed. I have letters from the trust saying my loans are settled in full and in fact the trust is gone. This all happened circa-2006 - original loans 2001-ish.

I am also not aware of the "magic" (other than the LC reviving these loans and making them "outstanding"!). I believe Webberg believes they never purchased the actual foreign currency so it was all paper based depreciation. But I have seen no evidence either way and have stacks of paperwork detailing my loans in ccyX and the depreciation of ccyX, which matched real rates published at the time - so I have no reason to doubt the workings of the scheme and there is certainly no reason for me to challenge it either.

Was this the scheme that was approved by Julian Ghosh QC? My understanding the last bit of the loan was paid off for that one, not waived, according to Rhys of WTT.

[starstruck]

He must have missed that in your post.

A pretty fundamental part to miss! But yes, I think he is wrong.

[BrilloPad]

Lots of discussion in lots of places but opinion seems to be this is for open enquiries.

Agreed about 2:12 . But 2:13 seems to be a catch all. I think this might include anyone using a PSC.

Surely the point of the review should be to create some certainty. Instead, Amyas uses unclear statements. HMRC still rule the UK. 2:12 and 2:13 should both be removed.

I wonder what Amyas was bribed with to get him to deliver such a crock?

[starstruck]

Was this the scheme that was approved by Julian Ghosh QC? My understanding the last bit of the loan was paid off for that one, not waived, according to Rhys of WTT.

Yes, his analysis was given to me at the time as proof it was all legitimate and above board - it was the main reason I was persuaded to join.

For one set of loans for one 'scheme' I repaid the final small depreciated amount and have a letter saying that is "full and final settlement of all liabilities that you have with us". For the rest they were definitely waived as I have a letter saying "the Trustees have therefore today resolved to waive your loans which total xxx ZWD.".

[starstruck]

Agreed about 2:12 . But 2:13 seems to be a catch all. I think this might include anyone using a PSC.

Surely the point of the review should be to create some certainty. Instead, Amyas uses unclear statements. HMRC still rule the UK. 2:12 and 2:13 should both be removed.

I wonder what Amyas was bribed with to get him to deliver such a crock?

But surely this new team will need new legislation to go beyond the normal limits. How are the going to investigate a 2001 closed year without new powers (now the LC doesn't catch that year)?