BIG GROUP

[webberg]

I have posted elsewhere (What is the 2019 loan charge) some thoughts around the present "mood" in some of the postings.

In short, there are commentators who consider that HMRC have boxed us all in with the latest round of legislation and that the only sensible course is now settlement.

Those commentators have a valid point and can be very persuasive. I would not presume to say that they are incorrect and certainly have no desire to engage in a technical debate over the possible effects of legislation that is theoretical at present and unlikely to be tested in anger for a considerable time.

Rather the point I have made is that the uncritical acceptance that the legislation is now so tightly written that escape is impossible, is not presenting a balanced view.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that those commentating are working at or for HMRC and do not suggest that. I do however think that their present mind set is not to consider any option other than that HMRC wishes to achieve.

This is a theme we will address in the next newsletter in more detail.

I post here because I know some BG members favour this forum over our own.

[Clairol]

Maybe post on the BG forum too?
Been a few comments about lack of posts on there compared to here recently.

[webberg]

Maybe post on the BG forum too?
Been a few comments about lack of posts on there compared to here recently.

You are absolutely correct and that position will be remedied over this weekend.

[stonehenge]

webberg,

Do you believe that you can achieve a better financial outcome* for your members than either CLSO2 or LC19?

How confident are you of that?

See if you can answer in few words (eg. yes and very).

* Just to be clear, by better outcome, I mean people end up paying less than they would under CLSO2 or LC19.

[Safe]

webberg,

Do you believe that you can achieve a better financial outcome* for your members than either CLSO2 or LC19?

How confident are you of that?

See if you can answer in few words (eg. yes and very).

* Just to be clear, by better outcome, I mean people end up paying less than they would under CLSO2 or LC19.

In engineering, there is a term that is called "confidence level". If something has 95%- 98% confidence level even with 2-5% of not getting the results, still good to go with that. However if % drops to 80% or below then that needs to be mitigated against other options you have which will give you better confidence level (results). It might be expensive but you are sure that you'll get it done and get the results.

[webberg]

webberg,

Do you believe that you can achieve a better financial outcome* for your members than either CLSO2 or LC19?

How confident are you of that?

See if you can answer in few words (eg. yes and very).

* Just to be clear, by better outcome, I mean people end up paying less than they would under CLSO2 or LC19.

First LC19 is NOT settlement. It's a tax charge on loans and DOES NOT settle any outstanding HMRC enquiries or the tax position of loans received in earlier years. Consequently, this is irrelevant to the questions asked.

Do I think our plan will result in less tax paid than under the CLSO 2 offer? Yes.

How confident? We quote members 65%. We thought this pre Rangers.

Is that confidence level based on hard facts? Partly, but to a degree it's a question of opinion and experience.

We have said since Day 1, we have no guaranteed answer and certainly legislation and HMRC trying to write out of history their errors does not help.,

[Safe]

First LC19 is NOT settlement. It's a tax charge on loans and DOES NOT settle any outstanding HMRC enquiries or the tax position of loans received in earlier years. Consequently, this is irrelevant to the questions asked.

Do I think our plan will result in less tax paid than under the CLSO 2 offer? Yes.

How confident? We quote members 65%. We thought this pre Rangers.

Is that confidence level based on hard facts? Partly, but to a degree it's a question of opinion and experience.

We have said since Day 1, we have no guaranteed answer and certainly legislation and HMRC trying to write out of history their errors does not help.,

Now we know the rangers case, what sort of confidence level you are quoting?

If I'm taking a plane say from A to B and pilot said that he is 65% confident to reach to destination (B), will you accept the risk and take the plane or you look for another option to reach to your destination i.e. train but longer hours to reach to "B" but with very high confidence level.

[webberg]

Now we know the rangers case, what sort of confidence level you are quoting?

If I'm taking a plane say from A to B and pilot said that he is 65% confident to reach to destination (B), will you accept the risk and take the plane or you look for another option to reach to your destination i.e. train but longer hours to reach to "B" but with very high confidence level.

As I said, we have not changed our view since Rangers. We should increase our confidence but in light of the legislation coming out from HMRC and the constant "nudge" and bullying, we have not.

Your analogy is flawed.

A better one might be that you can go from A to B on a plane and it will cost you 100.

Or you can go from A to B on a train which may take longer but might only cost you 50 although with a chance (35% in our view) that the price could still be 100.

You have to make a judgement call.

[starstruck]

As I said, we have not changed our view since Rangers. We should increase our confidence but in light of the legislation coming out from HMRC and the constant "nudge" and bullying, we have not.

Your analogy is flawed.

A better one might be that you can go from A to B on a plane and it will cost you 100.

Or you can go from A to B on a train which may take longer but might only cost you 50 although with a chance (35% in our view) that the price could still be 100.

You have to make a judgement call.

That assumes HMRC will settle on the same terms as they are now if your strategy fails. The 100 air fare may have increased by the time the train has derailed; it might have to be a boat at 150 by then. Are you guaranteeing members current settlement terms if the strategy fails?

[LandRover]

That assumes HMRC will settle on the same terms as they are now if your strategy fails. The 100 air fare may have increased by the time the train has derailed; it might have to be a boat at 150 by then. Are you guaranteeing members current settlement terms if the strategy fails?

May I interject...there are no guarantees in life except that we all dies and will pay tax:-)

What do you want to hear?

Yes its guaranteed? Look the scheme providers stated the schemes were backed by Tax Counsel, and many fell for that useless guarantee.

Imo, better to take this offline, contact people directly or deal with HMRC yourself.