“ I owe £180,000 in tax and I haven’t told my wife”

[AtW]

Loan charge participants successfully argued that loans were not sham or bogus, but in fact bona fide commercial loans.

[NowPermOutsideUK]

Loan charge participants successfully argued that loans were not sham or bogus, but in fact bona fide commercial loans.

That’s why I asked how liquidators are chasing loans if the judge has found them to be bogus

[eek]

I know this is general so forgive me for asking but having read the hmrc forums can I just make sure I understand in a nutshell what happened to people who took out loans as disguised renumeration

1) hmrc are rolling up all the loans and taxing them in one year - ok that I understand and expected from the loan scheme

2) more worryingly liquidators are now chasing the contractors and asking for the loans to be repaid

Is this the way the cookie crumbles with the contractor get shafted by both hmrc and liquidator or a bogus loan?

Like I said I did not do this loan scheme but if (2) is true then this is really nuts

2) is the obvious final pay-off if you are a loan organiser who just wants the money but that can be split into 2 separate pots - those like Felicitas who are just after more money and liquidators who are just doing their job.

Liquidators have to recover the money they can recover - which means chasing the people who were loaned money for the money they received. Most of those cases seem to reflect schemes by an individual who to be frank doesn't seem to have been that good at administrating the schemes.

[eek]

Loan charge participants successfully argued that loans were not sham or bogus, but in fact bona fide commercial loans.

If you read the HMRC forum you will notice I often talk about Schrodinger money where it is both income (to HMRC) and a loan (to the scheme organisers) at the same time. And both items are actually completely valid so you may well owe HMRC money and still need to repay the loan.

[AtW]

If you read the HMRC forum you will notice I often talk about Schrodinger money where it is both income (to HMRC) and a loan (to the scheme organisers) at the same time. And both items are actually completely valid so you may well owe HMRC money and still need to repay the loan.

But that’s completely unfair!

[eek]

But that’s completely unfair!

If you think it's unfair don't use the toys of millionaires to fund a lifestyle you really can't afford.

[AtW]

That’s why I asked how liquidators are chasing loans if the judge has found them to be bogus

Well, if the judge found loans to be bogus then surely it’s criminal tax evasion then rather than that mythical “legal tax avoidance”?

Govt would have to double jails to keep participants of these schemes, plus lose tax on what they earn during years, so I guess that’s why they did not do it.

[DealorNoDeal]

Is this the way the cookie crumbles with the contractor get shafted by both hmrc and liquidator or a bogus loan?

Urban Dictionary: spit-roast

[eek]

Well, if the judge found loans to be bogus then surely it’s criminal tax evasion then rather than that mythical “legal tax avoidance”?

Govt would have to double jails to keep participants of these schemes, plus lose tax on what they earn during years, so I guess that’s why they did not do it.

It's only a "bogus loan" in relationship to the fact the loan only existed as a means of avoiding (or delaying) income tax.

It is still a loan when it comes to a liquidator recovering assets to pay the other debts of the company.

[NotAllThere]

This is a _V_ery good question...

Hmm. I do find a match with AtW however....

Making it a criminal offence to run schemes would be a better deterrent. The risk of jail time would soon put a stop to the scheme pedlers.

Nah. Just make the scheme peddlers (and QC who gave the opinion) liable for unpaid tax if the schemes don't work.