Finance (No.2) Bill - Have your say [URGENT]

[Iliketax]

Quietly, in the background, Labour are gathering stories of hardship and will throw this at the government when real lives are impacted.

Then you might want to suggest to your MP that he gets his colleagues to tweak the wording of their amendment 38. Otherwise I'd expect that the impact of what they plan to say will be lost when the minister says that their amendment is designed to make life better for 45% taxpayers and that his party does not support that sort of thing.

Not that HMRC, HMG or any of the professional bodies really give a **** that a single mother will be made insolvent

I don't think that is right. It is certainly not my experience.

[ConfusedEasily]

Reporting requirements on trusts....2019 ....

For not reporting / not reporting properly - see amendments 34 to 37 https://publications.parliament.uk/p...m_pbc_0105.pdf

Which is fair enough I think. The Law's the Law and once passed needs to be enforced.

The problem I have is that my use of the scheme was so long ago that I have no idea of the sums involved, have no access to bank statements etc. and the promoter is long gone.

I asked HMRC what voluntary payment they'd like as part of a settlement and they had no idea either.

What the reporting requirements on employers, agents and trusts?

My best hope is the trust tells HMRC who tell me so I can tell HMRC who can then tell me so I can pay tax.

This is a Kafkaesque nightmare of my own making....

[ConfusedEasily]

Then you might want to suggest to your MP that he gets his colleagues to tweak the wording of their amendment 38. Otherwise I'd expect that the impact of what they plan to say will be lost when the minister says that their amendment is designed to make life better for 45% taxpayers and that his party does not support that sort of thing.

HMG have assured us that there will be minimal impact on families. That is obviously rubbish. Labour can just sit back, take the assurances and then ask why the provision wasn't made to allow taxpayers to pay tax over extended TTP rather than go insolvent.

You can argue the toss over the collection of tax, but this is so punitive for many and needlessly so.

Originally Posted by ConfusedEasily
Not that HMRC, HMG or any of the professional bodies really give a **** that a single mother will be made insolvent

I don't think that is right. It is certainly not my experience.

I think it is fair. She has no recourse in any of this. She will be made insolvent because HMRC simply will not entertain any repayment plan that she can meet. She's in her late 30s - bankruptcy in the banking sector will kill her livelihood.

HMRC will not allow TTP long enough and make glib statements that the average earnings of impacted taxpayers is 250K. Linn Homer - what a genius she was. Could she actually count?

HMG, in the shape of Mel Stride, has shown no acknowledgement that the 2019 loan charge will ruin people's lives. Avoiders are a convenient figure to blame for all the ills in the UK - unless you're Google, Amazon etc.

Professional bodies have not recognised that advice by their members will cause hardship. They did nothing wrong, but where's the hand-wringing to beg the government to minimise the hardship - which (oddly) will maximise the tax take? Where's the hard-core lobbying to at least get the loan charge to at least close years in question? etc.

There was an opportunity here to end the loan scheme fiasco and the best they could come up with was the 2019 loan charge?

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

Please people, do not forget to also mention the IHT charge to come after the loan settlement. At some point the loan will be releases or written off, the crooks working at HMRC are just waiting to us even more.

[foobar]

Statements submitted are found here: https://services.parliament.uk/bills...ill201719.html

Seems only a handful of people have bothered submitted anything! Please take 5 minutes and get writing everyone!! The cut off for submissions is imminent.

Weird there is nothing submitted from ICAEW or CIOT.

[UPDATE] I have been in contact with ICAEW and they have submitted comments. Keep an eye on the above link to be updated.

[webberg]

I think you'll find that:

a. there was a mass of evidence, so much that the committee organisers struggled to summarise and present it;
b. Further committee time was refused by the Tories voting against
c. CIOT and ICAEW are having face to face sessions with the committee

[Delendog]

I think you'll find that:

a. there was a mass of evidence, so much that the committee organisers struggled to summarise and present it;
b. Further committee time was refused by the Tories voting against
c. CIOT and ICAEW are having face to face sessions with the committee

Is C. correct I thought that the oral evidence amendment was voted out by the Tories? That is what I thought when listening myself today. The further committee time voted out was to cover oral evidence giving.

[foobar]

Before the page is taken down, here are the indifferent members of the Public Bill Committee who ignored tax experts and turned their cheek to the cries of 40K of their compatriots that now face ruin:
Sir Roger Gale, Albert Owen
Colin Lee, Jyoti Chandola, Gail Bartlett
Blackman, Kirsty (Aberdeen North)
Burghart, Alex (Brentwood and Ongar)
Carden, Dan (Liverpool, Walton)
Chalk, Alex (Cheltenham)
Clark, Mr Simon (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)
Dodds, Anneliese (Oxford East)
Dowd, Peter (Bootle)
George, Ruth (High Peak)
Graham, Luke (Ochil and South Perthshire)
Kerr, Stephen (Stirling)
Lee, Ms Karen (Lincoln)
Maclean, Rachel (Redditch)
Philp, Chris (Croydon South)
Pidcock, Laura (North West Durham)
Rutley, David (Macclesfield)
Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington)
Stride, Mel (Central Devon)
Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central)
Whateley, Helen (Faversham and Mid Kent)

[foobar]

I have waded through the full bill here: https://publications.parliament.uk/p...0071/18071.pdf

Most will be interested in the retro cash grab at Schedule 11;Part 4;Paragraph 36(1)(c)

However, not to be missed also in Schedule 11;Part 4;36(2) -> Seems you have 10 days from 06 Apr 2019 for BOTH the trustee and yourself to provide the loan information to HMRC. I suggest people do not leave this to the last minute trying to find 20 year old documents.

Failure to comply with above results in eye watering penalties detailed in Schedule 17;Paragraph 44 (1),(2) and(3):
- £5,000 for each scheme;
- Rises to £10,000 for multiple failures to comply;
- The penalty will be simply treated as tax charged.
- The penalty is not appealable and due within 30 days.

Of particular interest in Schedule 17;Paragraph 48(2) - "Insufficient funds is not a reasonable excuse not to pay." I have no evidence of it but this part stinks of the Nudge Unit who have said quite openly the excuse of not paying needs removing.

[me206et]

However, not to be missed also in Schedule 11;Part 4;36(2) -> Seems you have 10 days from 06 Apr 2019 for BOTH the trustee and yourself to provide the loan information to HMRC. I suggest people do not leave this to the last minute trying to find 20 year old documents.

Failure to comply with above results in eye watering penalties detailed in Schedule 17;Paragraph 44 (1),(2) and(3):
- £5,000 for each scheme;
- Rises to £10,000 for multiple failures to comply;
- The penalty will be simply treated as tax charged.
- The penalty is not appealable and due within 30days.

As long as there is a box for "I have no idea and no way of finding out".

WTF.

All my UK paperwork went south 15 years ago.
My UK bank account used when working closed 10 years.
ago.

So all I could declare is I know I used at least one scheme.

For an unknown period and an unknown amount.