2019 tax charge - consultation preparation

[flamel]

You can't be serious.

I think he's trying to say that the effective tax rate on this retrospective law is PAYE and NIC on earnings before the scheme provider made a loan, plus interest, plus IHT. Effectively, this will include paying tax on money never received by the individual, so the effective tax rate is over 50%.

[AtW]

I think he's trying to say that the effective tax rate on this retrospective law is PAYE and NIC on earnings before the scheme provider made a loan, plus interest, plus IHT. Effectively, this will include paying tax on money never received by the individual, so the effective tax rate is over 50%.

Tough, it was done by choice, why should other taxpayers pick up the tab for those people who have chosen to pay 10% to some scheme providers?

That 10% should have been paid AFTER tax anyway, just like everybody else is doing.

What amazes me is that those schemes providers are not being pursued for misseling by the people who got sold those "schemes".

[Fred Bloggs]

Tough, it was done by choice, why should other taxpayers pick up the tab for those people who have chosen to pay 10% to some scheme providers?

That 10% should have been paid AFTER tax anyway, just like everybody else is doing.

What amazes me is that those schemes providers are not being pursued for misseling by the people who got sold those "schemes".

A bit difficult when the guys with all the money are hiding in Belize or some place.

[AtW]

A bit difficult when the guys with all the money are hiding in Belize or some place.

And it's easy to fight HMRC???

Belize and other offshores will start exchanging bank account data automatically with UK and other countries, so getting court orders to freeze money or just getting start of trail of money there could be a good start, at the very least you can make their life difficult with limited travel opportunities, perhaps they'd choose to settle privately too???

[Fred Bloggs]

And it's easy to fight HMRC???

Belize and other offshores will start exchanging bank account data automatically with UK and other countries, so getting court orders to freeze money or just getting start of trail of money there could be a good start, at the very least you can make their life difficult with limited travel opportunities, perhaps they'd choose to settle privately too???

No of course it is not easy to fight HMRC, they have unlimited resources to call on.

I seriously doubt that any of the people with all the money are now traceable. And if they are, their money will be washed whiter than white in a jurisdiction where it is untouchable. Think about it, how many years have they had to plan their disappearance?

[AtW]

I seriously doubt that any of the people with all the money are now traceable. And if they are, their money will be washed whiter than white in a jurisdiction where it is untouchable. Think about it, how many years have they had to plan their disappearance?

Does not matter, even if they just end up bankrupt or limited in their travel, also a good result. Previously some of them were assisting in fight with HMRC, but the end is surely nigh now, so if I was in this boat I'd think of revenge (via legal route obviously!), and who knows - perhaps they'd settle quietly with those private individuals who'd mount court action?

I am sure they've got watertight contracts where all liability is disclaimed though, but misseling surely can override it?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Beware certain posters with an axe to grind.

The only reason they're not more overtly venomous is because this is a moderated thread.

Some of us have felt their vitriol before over the years.

Best to just ignore.

[AtW]

Some of us have felt their vitriol before over the years.

Why are protecting the scheme providers?

Maybe you won't get any money from them, but perhaps legal action against them would help write off those sham "loans", which would solve 2019 tax charge.

[Whysoserious]

Why are protecting the scheme providers?

Maybe you won't get any money from them, but perhaps legal action against them would help write off those sham "loans", which would solve 2019 tax charge.

1.The (Supreme) Court will decide if they are 'sham' loans. Not HMRC, not the Government. The Court and only the Court will decide.

2. It will be interesting to see HMRC in Court Room 1A presenting a case claiming the loans are a sham. Then their colleagues in Court Room 1B presenting a case where they accept the loans are in fact real, but are 'bad loans' that should incur tax. That won't make them look silly in the slightest...

As much as HMRC like to present themselves as the judge and jury. They like everyone else must abide by the laws of the land.
APNs are a massive inconvenience to say the least. But they do not determine whether the tax is due or not. That decision lies solely with the Court, not HMRC.
APNs goal - Make you withdraw from schemes due to the upfront cost and the wait for X years before a court decides you can get your money back.

The 2019 Tax Charge hasn't been drafted and HMRC can't even answer the simplest of questions on how it will work if implemented.
2019 legislation goal - For the next 3 years, to persuade you to settle before going to court. The scope, reach, implementation, caveats... is all completely unknown.

If HMRC were confident in proving these loans to be a 'sham', they could with existing powers take a loan scheme to court, win, then issue follower notices to all other schemes. They haven't and I wonder why?
I know from personal experience HMRC are dragging their heels, delaying progress and not committing to a hearing in the court of law.
HMRC will only agree to take cases to court if they believe they have a reasonable chance of success. The fact that they are delaying it, tells me everything I need to know.

[ASB]

I dont think hmrc are arguing they are a sham as such. Surely they are arguing that the original payment was chargeable to tax. The fact that you then gave it to somebody who loaned some of it back to you is immaterial. It was your money to do with it as you pleased.

I realise this isnt how the transactions were structured. But seems to be the approx purposive effect.