2019 tax charge - consultation preparation

[ASB]

I wonder if they will inadvertently (or possibly deliberately) catch "legitimate" loans.

Most major employers give specific purpose loans. e.g. season ticket. Expense advances etc.

Could make administering those a complete nightmare.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I wonder if they will inadvertently (or possibly deliberately) catch "legitimate" loans.

The legislation will have to be framed to only catch "disguised remuneration loans".

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I presume the reason they are only targeting loans, and not other forms of DR, is that the loans still exist. They only need prospective legislation to levy a one-off charge on any outstanding loans.

If they wanted to tax other DR, that people had received years ago, they would have to use full blown retrospective legislation.

[Iliketax]

I presume the reason they are only targeting loans, and not other forms of DR, is that the loans still exist. They only need prospective legislation to levy a one-off charge on any outstanding loans.

If they wanted to tax other DR, that people had received years ago, they would have to use full blown retrospective legislation.

Yes.

As far as "innocent" loans being caught, some might be if they just apply the current Part 7A rules. So, for example, if your employer did a deal with a bank that meant you got £100 of an arrangement fee for a normal mortgage and that was at the same rate that applied to members of the public, that would be caught by Part 7A but clearly shouldn't be. Hence I would expect the government to exclude some "innocent" loans. But loans that come from your employer are not in Part 7A anyway.

[webberg]

I suppose they could stipulate that the charge will apply if a pre-Dec 2010 arrangement would have been caught by the Dec 2010 Disguised Remuneration rules had they been in force at the time.

The trouble with this, though, is it is open to interpretation. Would it be worth the hassle to catch the non-DOTAS arrangements?

The Government will say this is all about fairness but cynical me says it's really about generating a windfall for the Treasury.

At the moment, they can't book any of the money they've collected through APNs. They need people to settle, either voluntarily or by coercion, hence the 2019 charge.

The Technical Note says that the new charge will apply by extending the definitions in Part 7A to periods (and schemes) that were BEFORE December 2010.

IN terms of booking the APN funds, they're already doing it. They say that because they win 80% of cases, they can book 80% of APN collected.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

IN terms of booking the APN funds, they're already doing it. They say that because they win 80% of cases, they can book 80% of APN collected.

Presumptuous buggers.

[eek]

Presumptuous buggers.

Yep they are definitely making assumptions there that I wouldn't be assuming

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The Technical Note says that the new charge will apply by extending the definitions in Part 7A to periods (and schemes) that were BEFORE December 2010.

But that sounds fully retrospective.

If they're doing that, why only loans? In the past, employees have received dividends, fine wine, gold bars and all sorts as DR.

[AtW]

It depends what the (hidden) agenda is.

The agenda is to teach a very painful lesson that any legal resistance is futile and will be punished very severely.

[DotasScandal]

The agenda is to teach a very painful lesson that any legal resistance is futile and will be punished very severely.

Pretty much.

(I guess that leaves us with illegal resistance?)