New Finance Bill 2017-18

[ConfusedEasily]

ILikeTax - you don't work for HMRC, you don't advise contractors - you're the leading expert in DR and so interested in why people get themselves into these sort of schemes that you're going to do a PhD on the subject. You also do a reasonable pastiche of the Monty Python parrot sketch.
Who are you?
I don't care if you work for HMG - you present valid points, but I'm interested in why you're on these forums? None of this impacts you....

[ConfusedEasily]

Yeah.. Pretty easy to spot

oh. That's really crap. But there's a lot of sadness and broken lives on here. Do they get off on it?

[Iliketax]

I was referring to this part of the budget.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...further-update

" The changes will also ensure the liabilities arising from the loan charge are collected from the appropriate person where the employer is located offshore"

.. and what about when the employer is onshore? I assume this covered by a different part of the legislation. Just wondering where that bit is.

Ah, I get you. There is no bit of legislation in the Finance Bill that adds an extra person. I assume HMRC thinking was (i) the employer is liable - fine, (ii) the employee is liable, fine, (iii) the end-user is liable where there is an offshore employer - that's not appropriate. So that's what they meant by the change to s689.

EDIT - also for the avoidance of doubt is the employer the company you had an employment contract with, who was detailed on your tax return with a PAYE reference, who sent you payslips and deducted PAYE and NI and sent you P60s etc. or can the revenue decide it is randomly someone else? If it is the first then I can reasonably determine if the employer still exists or not.

If it the person you have your employment contract with. 99 times out of 100 it will be the same one as shown on your payslip, etc.

HMRC cannot randomly choose someone else. I've not studied PAYE regulations on this but I think that they may also may include the person who paid you in some instances. But HMRC cannot just choose someone at random. And neither can you...

[davedavis]

oh. That's really crap. But there's a lot of sadness and broken lives on here. Do they get off on it?

His message is "You have no chance... Pay up"

If you agree with him then settle and stop griping

[Iliketax]

ILikeTax - you don't work for HMRC, you don't advise contractors - you're the leading expert in DR and so interested in why people get themselves into these sort of schemes that you're going to do a PhD on the subject. You also do a reasonable pastiche of the Monty Python parrot sketch.
Who are you?
I don't care if you work for HMG - you present valid points, but I'm interested in why you're on these forums? None of this impacts you....

Yep - I don't work for HMRC. I don't advise contractors. About a year or so ago I decided not to do a PhD (and it wasn't just about DR schemes for contractors but behaviours around tax avoidance more generally).

My day job involves DR but that is a small part of it. I have spent a lot of time - and I mean a lot of time - understanding it and its nuances, understanding the people who designed it and who manage it. I'm not prepared to say who I am. That shouldn't matter to anyone though as you'd be mad to take advice from an internet forum.

Why am I on these forums? To start with it was just watching people's attitude to tax avoidance. Pretty passive. Then as I read more I got more and more frustrated about some of the crap being said and so I started posting stuff. In particular, those threads that encourage more dodgy stuff or those that try to create uncertainty.

I do get some work-related benefit in that some of the things that people say make me think about something different or help me understand a particular nuances. I'm not a contractor, have never taken part in a tax avoidance scheme and do not have a financial stake in any of this. I recognise that some people will be stuffed because of the changes.

I also won't reply to PMs asking for personal advice but am happy to reply on a thread.

[ConfusedEasily]

His message is "You have no chance... Pay up"

If you agree with him then settle and stop griping

I can't f!!!i!!g settle because it was back in 2005. The year is closed. I have no records from that time (apart from one damaged payslip) so I have no idea how much I would declare. My accountant asked HMRC how I would settle under these circumstances and he was told to make an intelligent guess. WTF.

Perhaps a magical post will appear on here clarifying what it is we should do for years up to 20 years ago (way past the point where we are required to keep record) given this ridiculous legislation.

[ConfusedEasily]

Yep - I don't work for HMRC. I don't advise contractors. About a year or so ago I decided not to do a PhD (and it wasn't just about DR schemes for contractors but behaviours around tax avoidance more generally).

My day job involves DR but that is a small part of it. I have spent a lot of time - and I mean a lot of time - understanding it and its nuances, understanding the people who designed it and who manage it. I'm not prepared to say who I am. That shouldn't matter to anyone though as you'd be mad to take advice from an internet forum.

Why am I on these forums? To start with it was just watching people's attitude to tax avoidance. Pretty passive. Then as I read more I got more and more frustrated about some of the crap being said and so I started posting stuff. In particular, those threads that encourage more dodgy stuff or those that try to create uncertainty.

I do get some work-related benefit in that some of the things that people say make me think about something different or help me understand a particular nuances. I'm not a contractor, have never taken part in a tax avoidance scheme and do not have a financial stake in any of this. I recognise that some people will be stuffed because of the changes.

I also won't reply to PMs asking for personal advice but am happy to reply on a thread.

Ok...here are some questions:

1. How possible will it be for the loan charge to work for schemes up to 20 years ago?
2. How f***ed are we?
3. What's the top three most ridiculous things that are said in these scheme related forums that people may believe to be true?
4. Why me?

[Iliketax]

Would it be possible that the nudge unit may be posting on here?

If they are, it is not me.

[Iliketax]

Ok...here are some questions:

1. How possible will it be for the loan charge to work for schemes up to 20 years ago?

HMRC would say to ask the lender. One of the amendments that they added to the Finance Bill was to give you the right to get information from your lender. Have a look for para 35B here: https://publications.parliament.uk/p...7.htm#sch1-pt3 (actually, the formatting seems to go wrong so ctrl-F for "appropriate third party").

Personally, I think that para is not worth the paper it is not written on. But if I was in your position and genuinely did not know, I would be asking the trustee in writing for the information and keeping a copy of that letter plus their reply. I'd also send it recorded delivery. If you get an answer, fine. If the trustees don't tell you and it ever gets to the stage where you end up being challenged by HMRC then you can show that you took care and that you have a reasonable excuse.

[ConfusedEasily]

If they are, it is not me.

Well - I doubt HMG would be paying you overtime on a Saturday if you were