New Finance Bill 2017-18

[MyxALot]

The 2019 Charge may have been drafted for a long time but I'm not sure they could ask for a Judicial Review on the draft and probably had to wait for it to become legislation which looks to be quite recently.

Exactement.

[ChimpMaster]

Employed (with dissolved employer): income tax, no NIC, by 31 January 2020
Employed (with employer still around): employer operates PAYE, employee's NIC due, employer will want reimbursement promptly after April 2019 - depending on PAYE code, may have extra income tax on 31 January 2020
Self-employed: income tax, class 4 NIC, by 31 January 2020 - but be very careful with payments on account!

Difference between income tax and PAYE is that PAYE is the method by which an employer withholds income tax on behalf of the employee.

No interest on April 2019 loan charge. But if you have an open year then HMRC may still pursue interest on that (but no double tax).

Sounds like it's better if the employer is dissolved.

In the case where HMRC have no protected years and all years are < 2011, is there only one difference between paying 2019 Loan Charge or paying Voluntary Restitution: making use of any existing tax allowances/brackets, i.e. pretty much paying 40% rather than 45% tax?

There is the timing aspect too of course i.e. Voluntary would be due ASAP under CLSO2 and the Loan Charge would be due in Jan 2020.

[BrilloPad]

This is not correct at all. Most of the JR applications over APNs for example have literally been on the grounds that these are 'unfair' on the recipient. And it may well be unfair to demand payment of disputed taxes and argue over it later but it is no surprise these applications have failed. JRs can and are won on tax matters when they are based on substantive, factual discrepancies in the law and application of that law and not 'unfairness.'

Although not referred to in your post, it is also wrong to use the 'we dont have public support' argument. Public support doesnt hold sway in matters of tax to the Tax Chamber ie FTT and UTT, nor the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. These matters are not held before a jury of our so called peers but, Judges, some schooled in tax matters.

The elephant in the room however, is getting 500+ contractors coralled together, organised and willing to pay the money for litigation while they are individually picked off, some would say targetted, by HMRC's bully boy tactics.

It can be done and I know of at least one group who are successfully managing this.

Coralling contractors is like coralling cats.

JRs do not work. Montpelier tried it against retrospection. The courts ruled parliament can do what they want when they want to.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is listening to lawyers. If lawyers were firemen upon callout they would pour napalm on the flames.

It was said by Shakespear(Henry 5th part 2) "first let us kill all the lawyers". They say Shakespeares jokes are no longer funny.

[starstruck]

Employed (with dissolved employer): income tax, no NIC, by 31 January 2020
Employed (with employer still around): employer operates PAYE, employee's NIC due, employer will want reimbursement promptly after April 2019 - depending on PAYE code, may have extra income tax on 31 January 2020
Self-employed: income tax, class 4 NIC, by 31 January 2020 - but be very careful with payments on account!

Difference between income tax and PAYE is that PAYE is the method by which an employer withholds income tax on behalf of the employee.

No interest on April 2019 loan charge. But if you have an open year then HMRC may still pursue interest on that (but no double tax).

Back to my original question -> I thought there was no legislation that allowed the transfer of a PAYE demand from employer to employee and that it would be added in the budget. There was going to be a consultation bla bla blah ... The budget then appeared with stuff about the transfer of PAYE from offshore employers. So either the transfer rules where there all along for onshore employers, or they can't transfer from onshore employers or I am misunderstanding something ...

[NotAllThere]

It was said by Shakespear(Henry 5th part 2) "first let us kill all the lawyers". They say Shakespeares jokes are no longer funny.

It was Dick the Butcher who said it in Henry VI Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2 and it wasn't really a joke as such. Dick was a follower of Jack Cade who was a bit of a rebel and thought if he disturbed law and order, he could take advantage of that and become king. Jack Cade wanted to execute people who argued about grammar.

[cojak]

Yeah.. Pretty easy to spot

Is it really?

Are you HMRC?

[eek]

Is it really?

Are you HMRC?

I wanted to ask him to name, names as there are only a few candidates and I know most of them aren't...

[cojak]

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

If you agree with him then settle and stop griping

As it is with BG - I would like to hear from a tax consultant who suggests otherwise, for a balance of opinion (and who isn't associated with a scheme, obviously).

[BrilloPad]

As it is with BG - I would like to hear from a tax consultant who suggests otherwise, for a balance of opinion (and who isn't associated with a scheme, obviously).

I would like to win the lottery. There is more chance of me winning the lottery than finding someone who can win a loan scheme in a HONEST opinion.

There may be tax consultants who will say they are winnable. I can think of one. They are worse than the original scheme promoters.

The best people can hope for is to settle at a decent amount. i.e. less than 80% of income.

[cojak]

I would like to win the lottery. There is more chance of me winning the lottery than finding someone who can win a loan scheme in a HONEST opinion.

There may be tax consultants who will say they are winnable. I can think of one. They are worse than the original scheme promoters.

The best people can hope for is to settle at a decent amount. i.e. less than 80% of income.

That's what I thought BP, but there seems to be others on here who don't.