“Catch all” law to stop tax avoidance could be introduced in spring.

[AtW]

Source: Downing Street: broadest shoulders must carry tax burden - Telegraph

[d000hg]

Just another tax that will eventually become part of the norm? I actually don't mind it - better to have a 50% "very high" bracket than increase the higher rate threshold which has happened in the past.

[BlasterBates]

What does this mean for loan schemes?

If you have an outstanding loan would that be taxed?

[AtW]

If you have an outstanding loan would that be taxed?

Good ideas - treating any loans other than single mortgage as income and taxing it accordingly should help deal with problem of getting in debt nicely.

[AtW]

I actually don't mind it - better to have a 50% "very high" bracket than increase the higher rate threshold which has happened in the past.

If you were 50% taxpayer (over 60% if amounts just over £100k due to personal allowance robbery) you'd think differently!

[BlasterBates]

Good ideas - treating any loans other than single mortgage as income and taxing it accordingly should help deal with problem of getting in debt nicely.

Obviously loans from a tax avoidance scheme. Interest free loans that don't get paid back, or loans that have no purpose other than to avoid tax. i.e. loans to you from a trust with which you're a beneficiary for example.

In fact I suspect it'll be more general than that, using terms such as "artificial" or "for the purpose of avoiding tax" and leave it to the judge's discretion.

So for example you get a loan from a bank to buy a car, and you pay it back with interest, it's clear that there is a business purpose in this transaction. But you get an interest free loan that you never pay back from a trust, and the trust is there to act in your best interests. It's pretty clear that this is for the purpose of avoiding tax.

[Incognito]

Good ideas - treating any loans other than single mortgage as income and taxing it accordingly should help deal with problem of getting in debt nicely.

So if SKA decided to lease some extra servers for a year to provide extra grunt you'd be quite happy having to pay interest on the loaned amount as well as paying income tax on the loaned amount?

Again if you decide you're going to buy a new couch on HP, you'd be happy at paying interest and income tax on such?

It's easy to say just do this to fix the problem when doing this has such a snowball effect on other normal things.

[AtW]

So if SKA decided to lease some extra servers for a year to provide extra grunt you'd be quite happy having to pay interest on the loaned amount as well as paying income tax on the loaned amount?

Whoever leases does not get in debt (I rent a flat but I don't have mortgage obligations), the object of lease is owned by some company.

I was referring to personal loans anyway.

By the way at the moment when SKA Inc buys servers up front we still have to pay corp tax on the amounts spend over annual investment allowance (it gets cut 4 times next FY).

[d000hg]

If you were 50% taxpayer [crud removed] you'd think differently!

No, disliking paying more doesn't mean you disapprove of the system. I'd rather I didn't have to pay any tax... but this is the real world.

[DodgyAgent]

They will never get it to stick