Finance Bill for Non Residents

[regron]

Matt Hall (or Saleos as he is known on these forums Saleos) is now living in Australia.

He may well be pursuing all sorts of angles to help users of schemes, but he's doing that from Australia.

Think we are both saying the same thing :-) my response was to 'bandemelbs' comment which sounded like he disagreed that he'd left.

[GoneSurfing]

It's not a question of faith. Apart from opening enquiries and raising assessments, HMRC have done very little over the past decade or so.

Until I see it in black and white I'm not relying on HMRC being overworked/slow/incompetent/lazy - they were that in dealing with EBTs and, as you point out, they've already shown that they're willing to do nothing for literally decades before springing into life with a law change to cover their ineptitude.

Once they've collected LC19, they'll have even less motivation to do anything.

That pre-supposes that they can/do collect LC19, and that the amount collected under that is less than an outstanding assessment with up to 20 years worth of interest and IHT.

e.g. 50k loans on top of say 15k other income in 1999 vs. 50k loans and no other income in 2019.

Are you saying a scheme provider is still taking an appeal to the tax tribunal? I wouldn't be at all confident of that succeeding.

Wouldn't Rangers apply for schemes prior to the 2011 DR legislation? i.e. employer liable and very difficult to transfer to employee.

[GoneSurfing]

I’m completely confident in stating that LC is the end of the matter. Enquiry falls away at that stage.

Is this actually documented somewhere by HMRC or a personal opinion? If the latter, then why so confident?

What is ‘falls away’? Is there a process to close open enquiries that will be triggered by paying the LC?

What happens to the discovery assessment amount marked as outstanding and incurring interest?

[Loan Ranger]

Wouldn't Rangers apply for schemes prior to the 2011 DR legislation? i.e. employer liable and very difficult to transfer to employee.

If there was a UK employer then Rangers may apply.

However, a lot of schemes had an Isle of Man employer, and there is no requirement for them to operate PAYE.

Boyle was in a loan scheme and was employed by an IoM company. "Employer liable" was one of the arguments his legal team made but the tribunal rejected it.
http://financeandtax.decisions.tribu...06/TC03103.pdf

[phil@pmtc]

Is this actually documented somewhere by HMRC or a personal opinion? If the latter, then why so confident?

What is ‘falls away’? Is there a process to close open enquiries that will be triggered by paying the LC?

What happens to the discovery assessment amount marked as outstanding and incurring interest?

Ah sorry, I think laziness of not reading the thread fully has been my downfall. Your message confused me (my fault) so to clarify. As any of my clients from here will testify, when i've presented them with potential liabilities I have always included a column showing the potential interest on the loan charge. This is certainly happening and if you call HMRC now they will tell you the same (they wont word it like that and obv needs to be an open enquiry).
Therefore, if the LC is paid (and includes the interest which i've always stated will be due) then the enquiry will fall away as quite frankly, they've taken the whole cake and eaten it. Hope that helps clarify. I guess my 'error' is to include the interest as part of the LC (which strictly it isn't as that would destroy their outrageous claim that its not retrospective) but as its certainly happening then in my mind it is one and the same hence including it in all my projections. Despite me doing that, It will have to be collected separately from the LC.
I guess the whole shambles is due to HMRC desperately clinging onto the claim that its not retrospective. Apologies for confusion, just that in my mindset, however they package it, its still interest on income applied retrospectively so I class it as the LC. Once that is paid, the enquiry falls away for the reasons stated above.

[Loan Ranger]

LC19 is a brand new tax charge in 2018/19. The fact that it's taxing historical loans is surely irrelevant. The tax only becomes due in 2018/19.

How can HMRC charge interest on that?

[phil@pmtc]

LC19 is a brand new tax charge in 2018/19. The fact that it's taxing historical loans is surely irrelevant. The tax only becomes due in 2018/19.

How can HMRC charge interest on that?

I agree with you it’s bonkers. However, it won’t be packaged as interest on the LC. It will be classed as the amount due on the underlying enquiry (if its successful in the eyes of HMRC). As i say, it’s the same thing but packaged in a different way to avoid admitting retrospective taxation.
I’ve always said, settlement removes all concerns. LC also does for the large amount of cases where LC amount > settlement as then the enquiry will fall away as nothing left to take, which is the situation I was referring to earlier.
However, where LC isn’t greater than amount protected by the enquiry they have a plan to charge more.
It’s a shambles and appalling but unfortunately HMRC will admit this is the plan. I’ve literally just called them again to confirm.
All that being said, I don’t think they will kill themselves to chase if the amount is relatively minimal and they have got the large % in their bank. That however is just my personal opinion based on conversations I’ve had.
I apologise that my earlier message didn’t explain what I meant v well, but I am totally confident that LC is end of the matter in most cases I’ve seen but that’s as there’s nothing left for them to take in my view. If however there is, they will potentially go for it. So:
Settlement = final
LC where no open enquiries = final
Lc with open enquiries = not final (in some cases)

[Loan Ranger]

However, where LC isn’t greater than amount protected by the enquiry they have a plan to charge more.

I guess there is a risk that making large pension contributions in 2018/19 might put you in that camp.

[phil@pmtc]

Cheers Phil can you PM me the details 😊

Just spoke to her and she has left the firm to join the Australian tax authorities!

[GoneSurfing]

I agree with you it’s bonkers. However, it won’t be packaged as interest on the LC. It will be classed as the amount due on the underlying enquiry (if its successful in the eyes of HMRC). As i say, it’s the same thing but packaged in a different way to avoid admitting retrospective taxation.
I’ve always said, settlement removes all concerns. LC also does for the large amount of cases where LC amount > settlement as then the enquiry will fall away as nothing left to take, which is the situation I was referring to earlier.
However, where LC isn’t greater than amount protected by the enquiry they have a plan to charge more.
It’s a shambles and appalling but unfortunately HMRC will admit this is the plan. I’ve literally just called them again to confirm.
All that being said, I don’t think they will kill themselves to chase if the amount is relatively minimal and they have got the large % in their bank. That however is just my personal opinion based on conversations I’ve had.
I apologise that my earlier message didn’t explain what I meant v well, but I am totally confident that LC is end of the matter in most cases I’ve seen but that’s as there’s nothing left for them to take in my view. If however there is, they will potentially go for it. So:
Settlement = final
LC where no open enquiries = final
Lc with open enquiries = not final (in some cases)

Thanks Phil... good to have it confirmed that closing enquiries does serve some purpose beyond a moral victory for a small portion of those affected.

And thanks for your participation here in general, your posts are appreciated even if the ramifications contained in them isn't always!