BIG GROUP

[webberg]

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that I will have to settle. I’m just waiting on conversations with your team before taking a final call.

I would hope that we will set out your options and allow you to make an informed decision and suggest that until you have such information, it would be wise not to opt for one route or another.

[webberg]

I have posted in our own forum this afternoon some news on the latest AML situation.

[THISISWRONG]

I have posted in our own forum this afternoon some news on the latest AML situation.

Hi Webberg, What is the link please?
I spoke with Tom today and are awaiting his comments. It doesnt sound good, but I live in hope.
I have meeting with my MP tomorrow and will be discussing with him, but I fear that all of this is in vain.
I am totally disheartened by the situation and the country as a whole - it is terrible that the small people are the ones penalised. I am fully considering my only option is to leave the country and turn my back on the UK.

[webberg]

Hi Webberg, What is the link please?
I spoke with Tom today and are awaiting his comments. It doesnt sound good, but I live in hope.
I have meeting with my MP tomorrow and will be discussing with him, but I fear that all of this is in vain.
I am totally disheartened by the situation and the country as a whole - it is terrible that the small people are the ones penalised. I am fully considering my only option is to leave the country and turn my back on the UK.

You need to be a member of Big Group to see that post.

If you are in the early stages, it may be a day or two to get access.

Happy to brief your MP if he needs background. Big Group has a lot of such papers.

[THISISWRONG]

You need to be a member of Big Group to see that post.

If you are in the early stages, it may be a day or two to get access.

Happy to brief your MP if he needs background. Big Group has a lot of such papers.

From talking with Tom, I understand that joining Big Group will not help and therefore he initially advised me not to join, so I dont have access Im afraid.

If you have anything that will help when speaking with the MP, then please share it. If you think it will help, I can probably arrange for a call with you at the same time? I have PM-ed you with my details if you wish to talk.

[LandRover]

From talking with Tom, I understand that joining Big Group will not help and therefore he initially advised me not to join, so I dont have access Im afraid.

If you have anything that will help when speaking with the MP, then please share it. If you think it will help, I can probably arrange for a call with you at the same time? I have PM-ed you with my details if you wish to talk.

May I suggest a good source of explanation can be found https://www.hmrcloancharge.info/

As the video explains the whole debacle with a clear & concise explanation.

[superbean]

What exactly does the law state re loans in place of income

This might have been addressed elsewhere - if so, apologies, I am new to the forum - but I am interested to understand where exactly is it spelt out in UK taxation law how IR35 and its subsequent mutations/incarnations were 'supposed' to be interpreted.

My query comes from an obvious place: we are told by HMRC that the tax avoidance schemes used were never that way intended (or words to that effect), yet I am interested to see what the actual details are in writing and where. Being no tax specialist, I am hopeful that one of the experts here can enlighten me.

I also believe, given the expected animosity from the public about us being classified as pure 'tax dodgers', that being properly informed with the facts and information will help to argue our case and persuade others to - if not necessarily sympathise, given that would be a stretch - understand from a broader perspective what HMRC are now forcing through. Not least because of the wide spectrum of individuals impacted.

Any insight appreciated!

[me206et]

I also believe, given the expected animosity from the public about us being classified as pure 'tax dodgers', that being properly informed with the facts and information will help to argue our case and persuade others to - if not necessarily sympathise, given that would be a stretch - understand from a broader perspective what HMRC are now forcing through. Not least because of the wide spectrum of individuals impacted.

The wider spectrum may include my tenant and her young family.
When the bill comes I will probably have to evict them from their family home which they have lived in for 12 years.
Having a checker-ed history of rental payment they will not get another house except from the council, which is likely to be a few years down the road and not where the kids go to school.
Thanks HMRC.

[superbean]

The wider spectrum may include my tenant and her young family.
When the bill comes I will probably have to evict them from their family home which they have lived in for 12 years.
Having a checker-ed history of rental payment they will not get another house except from the council, which is likely to be a few years down the road and not where the kids go to school.
Thanks HMRC.

That is just shocking. This is exactly what I meant when talking about the wider spectrum. Comments on other articles (the few that exist or I have come across) are scathing about 'tax dodgers' and the like.

Whilst I am not seeking exoneration for being naïve - albeit with supposed professional advice - I know for a fact that the majority of the tax-paying public is very one-sided when it comes to assessing the right of HMRC to go after taxation that they deem should have been paid in the first place.

Hence my original query about what does it actually state in writing.

Having discussed this with my husband (who has been employed with the same company for 30+ years, so we are total opposites with regard to careers), he likened it to the gov't changing speeding laws, ie telling lawful drivers that 70mph zones were actually 50mph zones and that they were going to fine everyone going back 20 years who had exceeding this limit during that time.

Best analogy ever, and from someone who (fortunately) is exempt from LC2019.

[Kais]

he likened it to the gov't changing speeding laws, ie telling lawful drivers that 70mph zones were actually 50mph zones and that they were going to fine everyone going back 20 years who had exceeding this limit during that time.

Best analogy ever, and from someone who (fortunately) is exempt from LC2019.

I've been reading a number of posters complaining the LC19 and equating it to a retrospective tax however the analogy given here is ridiculous and is nothing like the situation we find ourselves in; a 50 vs 70 speed limit is black and white, we all choose to operate in the grey to reduce tax.

If you want to use a speeding analogy then it would more similar to you wanting to speed (ie reduce tax) and seeking out advice from someone that told you it was fine to go 10% over the speed limit as this was a recognised buffer built in to the law to cater for differences in speedometers. Based on this advice and given the fact that you are keen to speed (reduce tax) you decide to drive at 77 and are caught speeding. It would be unfortunate and you may rightly feel aggrieved however if you honestly ask yourself was it always clear to you the speed limit was 70 you'd be very hard pushed to answer no.

There must be very few among us who even at the time thought they were completely operating in the white ie I put money in an ISA to reduce tax, I know that is what that tax break was designed for and feel confident its ok.

I join a tax reduction scheme involving offshore loans. The loans are tax free (for most of us) and they are supposed to be discretionary however we instruct when to make the loan. The loans only serve the purpose of reducing tax, nothing else. Being the intelligent people we are, very few could have genuinely thought this was not very much in the grey, closer to the black end of the spectrum.