can I contact HMRC to settle

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

So you got taxed 14% of anything/your loans over £325k?

MY apologies for leaving a gap in the specifications.

I settled on HMRC's terms and coughed up PAYE on my full loan total as income.

HMRC are now also trying to nail me in addition to the PAYE, IHT of around 14% on my total loan (income) + interest. This will however differ for people as we have different timeframes and loan totals so don't bank on this as being accurate. I am sorry but I'm not an expert in this, I took the IHT claim, divided by loan total, multiplied by 100. I only did his to give someone an idea of what to expect regarding the IHT charge.

As for my loan total, sorry but that is personal and definitely not for a public forum.

[webberg]

You should read the Supreme Court decision in Rangers. Short, concise and a good explanation.

IN terms of an example.

Let's assume you worked for Megabank and the bank was charged £100 by your scheme promoter for your work.

That £100 was your reward for the work done.

Promoter paid you £10 and deducted tax from that part.

They claim to have paid £75 to a trust (the rest disappeared in fees).

The trust claims to have lent you £75.

HMRC say - and the Supreme Court agreed - that the promoter paid you £85 (which should have had tax and NIC deducted) and that you subsequently instructed the promoter to make a payment of £75 to a trust which lent you that money back.

In effect you were due £100 less fees = £85.

However the employer (promoter) "redirected" £75 to a trust.

Think it through. I guarantee that you will find little legal evidence in the documents between you and promoter for this analysis but it matches the facts and in tax avoidance that is more important.

[ChimpMaster]

MY apologies for leaving a gap in the specifications.

I settled on HMRC's terms and coughed up PAYE on my full loan total as income.

HMRC are now also trying to nail me in addition to the PAYE, IHT of around 14% on my total loan (income) + interest. This will however differ for people as we have different timeframes and loan totals so don't bank on this as being accurate. I am sorry but I'm not an expert in this, I took the IHT claim, divided by loan total, multiplied by 100. I only did his to give someone an idea of what to expect regarding the IHT charge.

As for my loan total, sorry but that is personal and definitely not for a public forum.

See my post on the Big Group thread. From what I've read, IHTshould only be due if total lending was 》 £325k.

[EBTContractor]

See my post on the Big Group thread. From what I've read, IHTshould only be due if total lending was 》 £325k.

Yep. 5sec on google and you'll find this info...

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

You should read the Supreme Court decision in Rangers. Short, concise and a good explanation.

IN terms of an example.

Let's assume you worked for Megabank and the bank was charged £100 by your scheme promoter for your work.

That £100 was your reward for the work done.

Promoter paid you £10 and deducted tax from that part.

They claim to have paid £75 to a trust (the rest disappeared in fees).

The trust claims to have lent you £75.

HMRC say - and the Supreme Court agreed - that the promoter paid you £85 (which should have had tax and NIC deducted) and that you subsequently instructed the promoter to make a payment of £75 to a trust which lent you that money back.

In effect you were due £100 less fees = £85.

However the employer (promoter) "redirected" £75 to a trust.

Think it through. I guarantee that you will find little legal evidence in the documents between you and promoter for this analysis but it matches the facts and in tax avoidance that is more important.

Thank you for the simple explanation.

This should be concerning to everybody in the country because once (since) HMRC is allowed to ignore legal contracts (?), next time it will be someone else's (another industry's) turn and they should then not complain it us unfair. I for one will then be

So if I understand the ruling, the crux of it is it does not matter to HMRC what was agreed or written in our contracts with e.g. Horizon. That explains why (as I read and understand English), HMRC is also ignoring what they put in their own settlement regarding having included the release of my loans in their settlement.

I think people are not (yet) realising that even if they settle and pay PAYE, it is not the end of it. HMRC will then come after them for thousands in IHT on released loans or my guess, the 2019 charge will still catch them on the outstanding loans. My guess is many people think settling is the end of it, as you know, it is not.

Since I already settled I guess my problem apart from that HMRC included the release of my loans in their own settlement agreement and are now ignoring that fact. "However the employer (promoter) "redirected" £75 to a trust". So this is one of the big sticking points in my case.

Since HMRC is allowed to ignore contracts we are all . . . . . whats the word.

[BrilloPad]

Thank you for the simple explanation.

This should be concerning to everybody in the country because once (since) HMRC is allowed to ignore legal contracts (?), next time it will be someone else's (another industry's) turn and they should then not complain it us unfair. I for one will then be

No-one helped the BN66ers in 2008. CUK was wall to wall trolls. It took a huge effort from myself and DR to get people together.

They have proof of malfeasance. However a court will be unlikely to find against them as HMRC thought they were doing their best.

Its a bit like social workers. I have a letter from a social worker admitting to breaking the law. However they cannot be sued.

You have to accept HMRC are not just above the law. But they also tell the government what to do. Witness Gauke in opposition. He fought against BN66. As soon as he was in power he changed his mind.

And, of course, HMRC will not tackle rich individuals or companies.

Sadly I think the only solution is radical.

However no-one will help you. No-one will care. Its all very depressing.

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

So you got taxed 14% of anything/your loans over £325k?

My apologies, I did not know/realise why you asked about the loan total regarding IHT until now.

More bad news, just another one of HMRC's rules HMMafia are ignoring. My loan (total) is less than £325k and HMMafia is charging IHT from the first loan to the last. The whole lot, no exceptions.

I had a look at the discussion on the £325k limit but like everything else to do with HMRC, it looks as if they kept their backdoor open.

We need a revolution in this country!!!

[webberg]

Thank you for the simple explanation.

This should be concerning to everybody in the country because once (since) HMRC is allowed to ignore legal contracts (?), next time it will be someone else's (another industry's) turn and they should then not complain it us unfair. I for one will then be

So if I understand the ruling, the crux of it is it does not matter to HMRC what was agreed or written in our contracts with e.g. Horizon. That explains why (as I read and understand English), HMRC is also ignoring what they put in their own settlement regarding having included the release of my loans in their settlement.

I think people are not (yet) realising that even if they settle and pay PAYE, it is not the end of it. HMRC will then come after them for thousands in IHT on released loans or my guess, the 2019 charge will still catch them on the outstanding loans. My guess is many people think settling is the end of it, as you know, it is not.

Since I already settled I guess my problem apart from that HMRC included the release of my loans in their own settlement agreement and are now ignoring that fact. "However the employer (promoter) "redirected" £75 to a trust". So this is one of the big sticking points in my case.

Since HMRC is allowed to ignore contracts we are all . . . . . whats the word.

Yes, facts are more important than bits of paper.

I seriously doubt that the contract settlement you signed would have prevented HMRC coming for more. Most of those we have seen say something like

"We have assumed that your loans will be written off and we have charged IHT accordingly. If this does not happen within 90 days, we reserve the right to recalculate IHT at the time the loans are written off."

Just be aware that whilst the Judges decided that facts are better than papers, HMRC claim that this applies only for income tax and that for IHT purposes, they can follow paper over facts. Completely barmy.

A trust which is settled (paid for) by an employer and one that is settled by you, have completely different IHT rules.

In particular check out sections 21 and 65 of IHTA 1984.

The latter in particular was mentioned in previous settlement opportunities and might be very useful.

Whilst I think HMRC's analysis is wrong, if they have written an agreement that they are now reneging on, you have recourse to law and should stop corresponding with HMRC and reach for a lawyer.

If they have written the sort of agreement I think they may have, they are probably correct.

I know you have doubts about the value of professional advice, but for what it's worth I'll look over the agreement for you, free of charge, if you want me to and let you know what I think.

[webberg]

My apologies, I did not know/realise why you asked about the loan total regarding IHT until now.

More bad news, just another one of HMRC's rules HMMafia are ignoring. My loan (total) is less than £325k and HMMafia is charging IHT from the first loan to the last. The whole lot, no exceptions.

I had a look at the discussion on the £325k limit but like everything else to do with HMRC, it looks as if they kept their backdoor open.

We need a revolution in this country!!!

Some types of trust (EBTs mainly) are outside the lifetime allowance.

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

[QUOTE=webberg;2501806]Yes, facts are more important than bits of paper."



"I seriously doubt that the contract settlement you signed would have prevented HMRC coming for more. Most of those we have seen say something like
.........
A trust which is settled (paid for) by an employer and one that is settled by you, have completely different IHT rules.

In particular check out sections 21 and 65 of IHTA 1984.

The latter in particular was mentioned in previous settlement opportunities and might be very useful."

Thanks, some light reading for me for the weekend. Can't wait. Thanks for the info and also thanks for the headache I'm going to get trying to decipher IHT rues.

"I know you have doubts about the value of professional advice, but for what it's worth I'll look over the agreement for you, free of charge, if you want me to and let you know what I think."

I appreciate (and anticipated) your kind offer to have a look so I jumped the gun.
I contacted you around 5 weeks ago and again around 2/3 weeks ago via e-mail, that was before finding and joining this forum. You already have the information. I'm waiting patiently to hear if you need additional information or for your opinion.