Murray Group decision 5th July

[difficulttimes]

However the BBC article says retrospective legislation will be introduced.

Which article says that? Anything like that would I assume need to be part of a 'kangaroo style consultation' so it does mean that the 2019 LC may be pushed back until that is in. I always thought that in the 2019 LC that the PAYE liability starts with the employer and then it is magically transferred to the employee once the employer says 'I don't have the funds for that'. This of course would not be good news for the 'loan recipient' as the trustees could ask for the loan to be repaid to pay this liability. Can BDO not do this with the recipients as it is still a loan?

At the end of the day all of us want a fair settlement and move on from this debacle so fingers crossed we may get that but I won't be holding my breath as we are against the body that have endless funds and are able to make retrospective laws.

[BrilloPad]

Which article says that? Anything like that would I assume need to be part of a 'kangaroo style consultation' so it does mean that the 2019 LC may be pushed back until that is in. I always thought that in the 2019 LC that the PAYE liability starts with the employer and then it is magically transferred to the employee once the employer says 'I don't have the funds for that'. This of course would not be good news for the 'loan recipient' as the trustees could ask for the loan to be repaid to pay this liability. Can BDO not do this with the recipients as it is still a loan?

At the end of the day all of us want a fair settlement and move on from this debacle so fingers crossed we may get that but I won't be holding my breath as we are against the body that have endless funds and are able to make retrospective laws.

Rangers tax case ruling - what does it mean? - BBC Sport

The company is liable for the tax but given the company is in liquidation then the buck stops with the liquidators - in this case BDO. This doesn't mean that individuals who were in receipt of an EBT escape payment. Legislation is expected in the next few months that will require tax to be paid on all loans received through the EBT process from 1999 onwards.

I remember GB in 1997 saying in HoC that people should not be able to leave a company on a FRiday and start work on a Monday as a contractor. The actual IR35 legislation was very different.

I am concerned that HMRC might change the law so that if the employer does not pay then the employee does. Retrospectively.

[ASB]

They are not at risk at it was never a loan. And the law is clear - the burden falls on the employer.

However the BBC article says retrospective legislation will be introduced.

I was was wondering if the loan from the trust to the employee might be caught under the 2019 charge.

I think probably not since the guidance talks about disguised remuneration loans. It seems to me that the payment into the trust is now actual remuneration not disguised (the fact that hmrc wont see it doesnt change this). On that basis it seems that these loans should be safe from the 2019 charge.

[difficulttimes]

Rangers tax case ruling - what does it mean? - BBC Sport

The company is liable for the tax but given the company is in liquidation then the buck stops with the liquidators - in this case BDO. This doesn't mean that individuals who were in receipt of an EBT escape payment. Legislation is expected in the next few months that will require tax to be paid on all loans received through the EBT process from 1999 onwards.

I remember GB in 1997 saying in HoC that people should not be able to leave a company on a FRiday and start work on a Monday as a contractor. The actual IR35 legislation was very different.

I am concerned that HMRC might change the law so that if the employer does not pay then the employee does. Retrospectively.

Oh yeah I read that article but he is just talking about the 2019LC which was brought up in the hearing as well. HMRC may change the name of it from a loan charge to something else as if they go through with it but then a JR may well be on the cards in the future. Postponing the inclusion of this in the FB may be a god-send for HMRC now as they can take stock but the question is whether they will be able to add it to to the Summer FB when there is no finance select committee sitting. My view is that there will be a change to the 2019 LC but something will be in for this Summer's FB the question is what?

[ChimpMaster]

https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/201...gers-tax-case/

another write-up on this.

[BrilloPad]

https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/201...gers-tax-case/

another write-up on this.

Entirely written from the HMRC side though.

[webberg]

A few thoughts.

I've read the case a few times now and some faint glimmers of understanding are starting to penetrate my brain.

Lord Neuberger held that there was no sham in the arrangements. Therefore the sequence must have been;

Employer pays employee
Employee makes contribution to trust
Trust makes loan to employee.

The tax liability kicks in at step 1 and is the employers.

The loan however is "real". What is unclear therefore is whether the 2019 charge can apply, or whether it can be exempted because tax has already been settled.

Common sense, ethics and morals (and possibly law) says such a retrospective charge should not apply.

However common sense, ethics and morals (and possibly law) will probably not stop HMRC trying it on. I think we should be preparing for a legal battle on that.

[SimonJones]

LC 2019

How does this hearing now effect the LC2019? Should there be no clarity on the who pays the tax (ie employers or employee) by the tax year 2018/19, than where does the scheme user stand with regards to this charge in question?

[webberg]

The 2019 charge (called the DR charge by HMRC) is not yet law.

The original legislation was written before the Murray decision and as has been observed here, may struggle in the light of the reasoning.

My suspicion is that the law is being reconsidered now and may be tweaked to allow it to apply despite the decision. If that is the case (and I claim no special knowledge), then it leads to some potentially "interesting" scenarios.

If there is no disguising of remuneration how can the charge apply as a gateway condition is that the loan arising from a DR scheme?

Would the original announcement date and trigger date for the charge (17/3/16) be able to be sustained if the final shape of the legislation varies from that announcement?

The latter is of interest especially. If the trigger date has to move to issue of the second 2017 FB, and that is perhaps November, is there a window NOW to do something with the loan?

Bear in mind that a release of the loan is an event in Part 7A and taxable. Bear in mind that a repayment that results in you having the money back in some form is claimed by HMRC to be avoidance. Bear in mind that the loan exists in most cases, but does the trust?

At this stage I have more questions that answers.

I'm pretty sure though that we will see any number of "solutions" being proposed soon.

If so - please examine it carefully before committing to an action that may dig you deeper into this mess.

[SimonJones]

The 2019 charge (called the DR charge by HMRC) is not yet law.

The original legislation was written before the Murray decision and as has been observed here, may struggle in the light of the reasoning.

My suspicion is that the law is being reconsidered now and may be tweaked to allow it to apply despite the decision. If that is the case (and I claim no special knowledge), then it leads to some potentially "interesting" scenarios.

If there is no disguising of remuneration how can the charge apply as a gateway condition is that the loan arising from a DR scheme?

Would the original announcement date and trigger date for the charge (17/3/16) be able to be sustained if the final shape of the legislation varies from that announcement?

The latter is of interest especially. If the trigger date has to move to issue of the second 2017 FB, and that is perhaps November, is there a window NOW to do something with the loan?

Bear in mind that a release of the loan is an event in Part 7A and taxable. Bear in mind that a repayment that results in you having the money back in some form is claimed by HMRC to be avoidance. Bear in mind that the loan exists in most cases, but does the trust?

At this stage I have more questions that answers.

I'm pretty sure though that we will see any number of "solutions" being proposed soon.

If so - please examine it carefully before committing to an action that may dig you deeper into this mess.

Thank for the response.

I thought the judgement would give more clarity but it sounds like this will now lead into further mess and confusion.