New Finance Bill 2017-18

[starstruck]

Search on google - I found this ( https://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/...while-iron-hot ) in seconds. While you may not like what Iliketax is saying the reality is that to get the advice he is providing would cost you hundreds if not thousands of pounds

And how does this relate to the transfer of PAYE liability from employer to employee? We started discussing that and then ILikeTax introduced this 200% penalty warning. How are the two related? Assuming you declare all loans honestly when LC comes in and pay any demand made by HMRC as a result of that declaration - are we now being told there will be penalties as well?

[MyxALot]

Is being helpful and just presenting SOME OF the facts to support HMRC's view of things.

FTFY.

[Iliketax]

I've been wondering about this new 200% (minimum 100%?) penalty.

Under what circumstances - in terms of contractor EBT schemes - would HMRC look to apply this new penalty? And on what amount?

I wish I had kept my original reply short now...

I wrote this in the context of someone wanting trying a dodgy argument with an employer that is still around that may be unable to pay. I also said that this may well be irrelevant to contractors ("But I understand from this forum that the employers of contractors have been dissolved rather than left with no cash"). As I had just set out some partial comments to demonstrate I'd thought about things myself and didn't just accept HMRC's comments, I didn't want anyone to think it was a sensible course of action.

For someone who settles or pays the April 2019 loan charge, the new requirement to correct is unlikely a practical thing. But if someone tries to play silly (i.e. not pay the tax), then HMRC now has some incredibly wide powers. Here's a link to a flyer about it (first one that came up on google, I have nothing to do with them): https://www.rsmuk.com/-/media/files/...-tax-flyer.pdf

But if HMRC want to play hard-ball (and I am not saying that they would with someone who settles or pays the 2019 loan charge) then in the EBT context they would ask about the trust (almost certainly offshore) that lent you money. If you have not provided the IHT return that HMRC would say is due then you are within the scope of the regime. And (as far as I am aware) there is no time limit for HMRC to go back and ask about an IHT return that was not submitted.

But as I say again, I would not expect they would take the point with someone who settles or pays the 2019 loan charge. Technically though, they probably could where there is an offshore EBT. But as I say yet again, I would not expect that they would.

Just to be absolutely clear, the requirement to correct does not apply to the April 2019 loan charge itself.

[cojak]

iliketax,

Do you have any exposure yourself?
How much?

If you don't then why you bother trying to scare the sh*t out of people?

Iliketax has been providing people with clear-eyed advice. There is no point sugar-coating the pill.

If you don't like what he has to say I would advise that you don't read his posts.

[ConfusedEasily]

I woke up early one morning and as I was starring at the belt of Orion at 3am on a cold December morning, I just realised I knew.

Or alternatively, I did a bit of reading...

It was a lovely morning...anyway.

Can you cut to the chase for the benefit of the hard of thinking?
How does the Rangers SC decision impact EBT users before the New Finance Bill 2017-18
How does the Rangers SC decision impact EBT users after the New Finance Bill 2017-18

[Iliketax]

It was a lovely morning...anyway.

Can you cut to the chase for the benefit of the hard of thinking?
How does the Rangers SC decision impact EBT users before the New Finance Bill 2017-18

My personal view: It didn't.

HMRC's view: They said it didn't. But they chose to change the law to make clear it did not. I've never had discussions with them as to why they thought they needed to change it.

Others: Some people said it did. You'd have to ask them but I think that they rely on the following statement "But if, on a proper analysis, the sums paid into the Principal Trust are emoluments in the first place, these provisions cannot apply as otherwise the taxpayer would taxed twice on part of the same earnings". If that is right (and they haven't told me that) then I would say that they have not taken into account the specific wording of the disguised remuneration legislation. In addition, I'd say that they ignored the following sentence in the same judgement "But the courts at the highest level have repeatedly warned of the need to focus on the words of the statute and not on judicial glosses, which may clarify or illustrate in a particular case but do not replace the statutory words". But this is just my gloss on things. I don't know what their actual thinking was.

How does the Rangers SC decision impact EBT users after the New Finance Bill 2017-18

My view: It doesn't and never did. But then I am a random person on the internet.

HMRC's view: They said it doesn't (and anyway they changed the law to make that clear).

Others: I've no idea. You'd have to ask them.

[ChimpMaster]

It was a lovely morning...anyway.

Can you cut to the chase for the benefit of the hard of thinking?
How does the Rangers SC decision impact EBT users before the New Finance Bill 2017-18
How does the Rangers SC decision impact EBT users after the New Finance Bill 2017-18

You're not really the appreciative type are you.

Rangers decision is trumped by Loan Charge. It made no difference.

It's time to pay. The only factors left to work out are when and how much.

Maybe you should pay for some advice rather than rely on the goodwill of people like Webberg and ILiketax.

[ConfusedEasily]

You're not really the appreciative type are you.

Rangers decision is trumped by Loan Charge. It made no difference.

It's time to pay. The only factors left to work out are when and how much.

Maybe you should pay for some advice rather than rely on the goodwill of people like Webberg and ILiketax.

Woooah. I just didn't understand his initial reply as 'my benefit of the hard of thinking' line (hopefully) got across. Perhaps I'm not the only one struggling to think...

And the advice I paid for (f**** expensive) tends to sit somewhere between ILiketax and Webberg.

Appreciative? Very much so.
Until recently, I had no idea that I was even impacted by this bollocks.

Are you impacted ChimpMaster? Or a rubber-necker?

[ConfusedEasily]

My personal view: It didn't.

HMRC's view: They said it didn't. But they chose to change the law to make clear it did not. I've never had discussions with them as to why they thought they needed to change it.

Others: Some people said it did. You'd have to ask them but I think that they rely on the following statement "But if, on a proper analysis, the sums paid into the Principal Trust are emoluments in the first place, these provisions cannot apply as otherwise the taxpayer would taxed twice on part of the same earnings". If that is right (and they haven't told me that) then I would say that they have not taken into account the specific wording of the disguised remuneration legislation. In addition, I'd say that they ignored the following sentence in the same judgement "But the courts at the highest level have repeatedly warned of the need to focus on the words of the statute and not on judicial glosses, which may clarify or illustrate in a particular case but do not replace the statutory words". But this is just my gloss on things. I don't know what their actual thinking was.



My view: It doesn't and never did. But then I am a random person on the internet.

HMRC's view: They said it doesn't (and anyway they changed the law to make that clear).

Others: I've no idea. You'd have to ask them.

Ok, in deference to ChimMaster, the moral guardian of this forum, the advice I paid for (f*** expensive) sits somewhat next to yours other than, on balance, the SC judgement did have an effect and that the impact is alluded to by the New Finance Bill 2017-18 which moved to make sure it didn't.

Why is the tax system in this country so completely messed up? I accept that I'll pay, but there are so many wrecked lives here which, had HMRC got its act together, could have been minimised.

[ConfusedEasily]

My personal view: It didn't.

HMRC's view: They said it didn't. But they chose to change the law to make clear it did not. I've never had discussions with them as to why they thought they needed to change it.

Others: Some people said it did. You'd have to ask them but I think that they rely on the following statement "But if, on a proper analysis, the sums paid into the Principal Trust are emoluments in the first place, these provisions cannot apply as otherwise the taxpayer would taxed twice on part of the same earnings". If that is right (and they haven't told me that) then I would say that they have not taken into account the specific wording of the disguised remuneration legislation. In addition, I'd say that they ignored the following sentence in the same judgement "But the courts at the highest level have repeatedly warned of the need to focus on the words of the statute and not on judicial glosses, which may clarify or illustrate in a particular case but do not replace the statutory words". But this is just my gloss on things. I don't know what their actual thinking was.



My view: It doesn't and never did. But then I am a random person on the internet.

HMRC's view: They said it doesn't (and anyway they changed the law to make that clear).

Others: I've no idea. You'd have to ask them.

Thanks for this.

And for those of you who think that this guy is HMRC or nudge unit or the Devil - he obviously isn't. He's not an Ambulance chaser, rubber-necker or simply getting off on other people's misery.

Probably the same reason I go to forums about guitars - it simply interests him and for that, I, and others, should be grateful.