Finance Bill 2017-18 V HMRC DR Settlement Terms

[BrownOwl]

There have been a number of HMRC technical notes that say if settlement has been reached then end of. I know you ( webberg) are providing s much needed service to people who are in dire circumstances but i have to say I’ve noticed that you have an entirely cynical view of HMRC - it’s almost as though you’re waiting for them to go back on their word, and wrong foot people. I’m sure that comes from as much exposure to them as you’ve had. After all I’m pretty cynical about IT and I’ve probably been in that profession as long as you’ve been in yours. And you may be right. But a legally binding settlement is just that, and I have faith that my HMRC case officer isn’t lying to me, and nor can he. Clso 1 was exceptional although I feel aggrieved for people who NEVER got an enquiry ( all closed years) and wouldn’t have known they have s problem so couldn’t/ wouldn’t have applied for clso1. That is an injustice, and I think you should attack HMRC on these grounds - not to drag those who’ve settled into the mire but to fight for those who could never have gotten clso 1 terms.

Why do you say cynical rather than experienced view of HMRC?

Good luck in 2019 and I hope HMRC stick to their email from a low-level case officer and that it's legally-binding.

[pimpernell]

Maybe what I mean is that there seems to be a view that HMRC can make it all up as they go along, change their mind, and because it’s a generally held view that we’re scumbags in their eyes, they can bend us over the table any time and any which way they like. However, in defence of my position: legally binding means just that; HMRC have said in tech notes, that the last time I looked are still current, that settlement means settlement, and ultimately we do have rights. It doesn’t matter who it came from in HMRC - he’s not acting in isolation: a legal document sent externally is just that and has weight in law. I have to have faith in that. And ii made an observation of webberg that’s all. WTT are the only game in town. Whether you believe that the BG solution has traction is up to you - there is very little alternative and probably none that comes up with a palatable set of numbers. Will it wash? From what I read in the FB HMRC have covered a lot of angles. Personally I’ve been embroiled in this for 10 years and I’m glad I’ve settled. And yes - my settlement is all about me and I’m out. I don’t have that nagging anxiety that you have any more. Selfish of me I know.

[ChimpMaster]

Maybe what I mean is that there seems to be a view that HMRC can make it all up as they go along, change their mind, and because it’s a generally held view that we’re scumbags in their eyes, they can bend us over the table any time and any which way they like. However, in defence of my position: legally binding means just that; HMRC have said in tech notes, that the last time I looked are still current, that settlement means settlement, and ultimately we do have rights. It doesn’t matter who it came from in HMRC - he’s not acting in isolation: a legal document sent externally is just that and has weight in law. I have to have faith in that. And ii made an observation of webberg that’s all. WTT are the only game in town. Whether you believe that the BG solution has traction is up to you - there is very little alternative and probably none that comes up with a palatable set of numbers. Will it wash? From what I read in the FB HMRC have covered a lot of angles. Personally I’ve been embroiled in this for 10 years and I’m glad I’ve settled. And yes - my settlement is all about me and I’m out. I don’t have that nagging anxiety that you have any more. Selfish of me I know.

The problem is that HMRC have made it up as they've gone along, and have changed their mind when it suited them, so you can't help but be cynical. The Loan Charge is completely retrospective. It's not retroactive, it's retrospective. This goes against tax policy itself.

Hence the view of many that there is still every chance HMRC can come after anyone for years on which loans might still be deemed open and tax not paid.

None of my years are open and the loans are almost a decade old. So the Loan Charge is well and truly retrospective for me.

I would have done the same as you, settled under CLSO1 had I known. But now I don't know what to do. Frankly I'm still in shock that my decade-old closed years will need to be declared and have full tax charged on them.

[pimpernell]

Agree with you. This is where the absolute injustice lies - if you have all closed years and you know that people who have a mix of open and closed, and were therefore inadvertently given a heads up to settle early with what turns out to be favourable terms. You never had that chance. FWIW i found it very difficult to find out what clso 1 settlement terms were. HMRC didnt publicise it and it was only on this forum i got an inkling. It sucks and that’s partly why I’m posting - to let people know the terms I got. On the grounds of fairness and consistent treatment I think HMRC have a case to answer.

[BrownOwl]

Maybe what I mean is that there seems to be a view that HMRC can make it all up as they go along, change their mind, and because it’s a generally held view that we’re scumbags in their eyes, they can bend us over the table any time and any which way they like. However, in defence of my position: legally binding means just that; HMRC have said in tech notes, that the last time I looked are still current, that settlement means settlement, and ultimately we do have rights. It doesn’t matter who it came from in HMRC - he’s not acting in isolation: a legal document sent externally is just that and has weight in law. I have to have faith in that. And ii made an observation of webberg that’s all. WTT are the only game in town. Whether you believe that the BG solution has traction is up to you - there is very little alternative and probably none that comes up with a palatable set of numbers. Will it wash? From what I read in the FB HMRC have covered a lot of angles. Personally I’ve been embroiled in this for 10 years and I’m glad I’ve settled. And yes - my settlement is all about me and I’m out. I don’t have that nagging anxiety that you have any more. Selfish of me I know.

If you've got a legally-binding agreement that states the 2019 loan charge doesn't apply, you're a very lucky chap.

I wish you the very best of luck and let's hope HMRC don't make it up as they go along one more time and introduce a 2020 loan charge.

[regron]

The Supreme Courts decision on the Rangers case is legally binding 100% but that hasn’t stopped them circumnavigating it though.

I also genuinely hope those who settled on CLSO1 with closed years are ok, but without something in writing specifically exempting you from the DR charge, still makes you fair game.

[BrilloPad]

If you've got a legally-binding agreement that states the 2019 loan charge doesn't apply, you're a very lucky chap.

I wish you the very best of luck and let's hope HMRC don't make it up as they go along one more time and introduce a 2020 loan charge.

Very much this.

I do hope the "legally binding agreement" has been made available to BG(redacted if necessary)? They might finding it interesting for other people? Or give feedback?

[MyxALot]

What is abundantly clear from this whole sh*tshow is that HMRC are:

• making it up as they go along
• rotten to the core with systematic and institutional incompetency at every level
• scared or unable to deal with tax fairly
• going for max tax where they can get it (i.e the little people rather than any decent-sized organisation even if that would have meant clawing back more tax)
• not to be trusted on any premise, whether it appears to hold any legal binding or not

With the above in mind, anyone who has settled under CLSO1 and who hasn't paid any contributions to match the tax liability of closed years can fully expect that HMRC will come back for it at some point in the near future.

[Joolsey86]

You are not helping the argument, those guys have documents written by HMRC stating they are settled.

You are just what winding them up. They have been through enough pain as it is.

[BrilloPad]

You are not helping the argument, those guys have documents written by HMRC stating they are settled.

You are just what winding them up. They have been through enough pain as it is.

A very tough call to make. In some ways we all need a bit of "safe space". As cojak point out though, opinions should not be sugar coated.

If people believe they are safe then maybe they should avoid this section of the forum?