AML 2019 Loan Charge

[WTFH]

Your summation of the above is nothing but fatalist in nature and wrought with assumptions of a strict interpretation of law.

I think Webberg may have been researching this and put more effort into understanding it than most on this forum.
There are some new posters turning up here with great ideas that they are convinced will work. Most of them have already been tried, researched, evaluated, and found to fail. People like webberg have been working on the problem for the last 3+ years, long before many thought there was a problem, or realised they would be caught up in it.

While free advice given on an internet forum should be taken at the value you've paid for it, it's also worth checking out who is giving the advice.

[Hero1234]

AML 2019 Loan Charge

The below is a post from "bleakhse" which I seem to have missed. For what it's worth, my comments in bold.

Lets take a step back and try to think about this. Yes, technically AML or Knox house Trust could come demanding the so called 'loans'. [Why are they "so called"? You signed a loan agreement. The loan is a legal obligation. The fact that the tax system regards them as something else is irrelevant to the positon of the borrower and lender]However, it can be proved that these were not loans but disguised remuneration. [Incorrect. For tax purposes the payment may be remuneration. For legal purposes, the loan exists.] More so if you have settled with the HMRC. The court rulings so far, be it the Rangers case in Scotland, or the AML judicial review are all saying that these were not loans but disguised remuneration. [A Judicial Review is into the legality or operation of a law. It has nothing to do with the tax liability. If you have settled then the decision in a tax case is irrelevant because you cannot benefit or be harmed by it].

...

If AML came demanding for the loans to be repaid, do not be scared, approach the courts for relief. [On what grounds?] The courts cannot rule that it is disguised remuneration in favour of the HMRC and then argue that the same disguised remuneration is loans in favour of AML. [The Courts have already held that the loans are remuneration. No Court has yet been asked about whether the loan obligations remain.] The logic is twisted. [No it's not. You apply tax law to tax and contract law to loans. Nowhere does it say that the definitions used in those sets of laws have to be the same] By ruling that the loans are disguised remuneration, that is what the 'loans' are. They cannot be both disguised remuneration and loans. [Sadly wrong].

I don't mean to offend or discourage this sort of thinking but if there is to be a fight over various issues which costs money, please enter into this in full knowledge of the facts and at the end of the day there is no substitute for discussing this with a knowledgeable person, rather than an anonymous poster.

My apologies if you have such professional knowledge.

Your summation of the above is nothing but fatalist in nature and wrought with assumptions of a strict interpretation of law. Have you not heard of the concept of Equity where law is inadequate to deal with an unfair situation be it contract or any other human transaction. He who comes to Equity comes with clean hands. i.e those individuals caught up in this mess did nothing wrong. If HMRC have deemed these "loans" as income upon which tax has been demanded, that is what they are. I have read in some quarters where these loan providers have requested for a 5% payment of the whole loan amount to write it off. Even that is considered cheeky after creaming off 5% of what is meant to be your income.

[webberg]

The below is a post from "bleakhse" which I seem to have missed. For what it's worth, my comments in bold.

Lets take a step back and try to think about this. Yes, technically AML or Knox house Trust could come demanding the so called 'loans'. [Why are they "so called"? You signed a loan agreement. The loan is a legal obligation. The fact that the tax system regards them as something else is irrelevant to the positon of the borrower and lender]However, it can be proved that these were not loans but disguised remuneration. [Incorrect. For tax purposes the payment may be remuneration. For legal purposes, the loan exists.] More so if you have settled with the HMRC. The court rulings so far, be it the Rangers case in Scotland, or the AML judicial review are all saying that these were not loans but disguised remuneration. [A Judicial Review is into the legality or operation of a law. It has nothing to do with the tax liability. If you have settled then the decision in a tax case is irrelevant because you cannot benefit or be harmed by it].

...

If AML came demanding for the loans to be repaid, do not be scared, approach the courts for relief. [On what grounds?] The courts cannot rule that it is disguised remuneration in favour of the HMRC and then argue that the same disguised remuneration is loans in favour of AML. [The Courts have already held that the loans are remuneration. No Court has yet been asked about whether the loan obligations remain.] The logic is twisted. [No it's not. You apply tax law to tax and contract law to loans. Nowhere does it say that the definitions used in those sets of laws have to be the same] By ruling that the loans are disguised remuneration, that is what the 'loans' are. They cannot be both disguised remuneration and loans. [Sadly wrong].

I don't mean to offend or discourage this sort of thinking but if there is to be a fight over various issues which costs money, please enter into this in full knowledge of the facts and at the end of the day there is no substitute for discussing this with a knowledgeable person, rather than an anonymous poster.

My apologies if you have such professional knowledge.

[QUODM]

AML lost judicial review and loans were DR?

Someone mentioned in this forum that AML lost their JR and their loans were classified as Disguised Renumeration. Can someone point me to the case or some summary of that?
On what basis were they determined not to be loans?
I note with dismay on AML generally that Knox pretends not to know them and even PTS is a 'totally different company' even though same morons working for them. How they can just close this company and the employees accept the liability and HMRC go out of their way to pass the charges to employees leaving AML is one of the more repugnant parts of this whole situation.
The 5% fees they are asking for now on what is clearly going to be a scheme that can't win is surely the fraudulent part.

[HW360]

LC2019 Options

All solutions to the Loan Charge will be provided by some kind of newly formed entity. Promoting a Loan charge solutions via an existing tax / promoter identity would attract too much attention from tax authorites. This is no surprise.

No solution provider is going to explain the mechanics. This is not to protect them...but it's to protect the user. There will be no insurances, opinions or fighting funds. Once the originator does this, the strategy will have many hallmarks of a tax avoidance scheme and be disclosable under DOTAS etc.

It has been made clear that settlement of loans from third parties etc will be 'ignored' if made in connection with a new tax avoidance scheme. Any transaction(s) entered into which have the effect of sidestepping the new charge must be entered into on purely commercial grounds. By telling the user how the solution works, there is a high risk of the solution itself collapsing.

There are options out there. But the recommendation process is going to remain very vague, because to sidestep the 2019 loan charge, the solution provider cannot tell you that the solution sidesteps the loan charge. Get your head around that one.

[taxgerry]

Lets take a step back and try to think about this. Yes, technically AML or Knox house Trust could come demanding the so called 'loans'. However, it can be proved that these were not loans but disguised remuneration. More so if you have settled with the HMRC. The court rulings so far, be it the Rangers case in Scotland, or the AML judicial review are all saying that these were not loans but disguised remuneration.
Please do not fall for another scum of 5% deed of release. That money is better spent arguing for your case in court. Even better if all ex-AML users came together and argue a single case.
If AML came demanding for the loans to be repaid, do not be scared, approach the courts for relief. The courts cannot rule that it is disguised remuneration in favour of the HMRC and then argue that the same disguised remuneration is loans in favour of AML. The logic is twisted. By ruling that the loans are disguised remuneration, that is what the 'loans' are. They cannot be both disguised remuneration and loans.

Even by their own admission, AML in their email of 18th April have unwittingly accepted that these 'loans' were in fact disguised remuneration. Read this extract from the email:
"...You will have received an email from Knox House Trust, the Trustees of the trust that holds your loan. They have outlined 2 options to mitigate the 2019 Loan Charge; Settlement or Repayment..."
Settlement means paying the tax due on the 'loan'. Now we have all taken bank loans or other regulated financial institution loan. I have never had to pay a tax on those loans. Knox House Trust loans are the only loans I have heard of where the recipient has to pay income tax on a loan.

Guys, the more we see the duplicity of AML/Knox, the more we should take the fight to them.

I suggest we start researching and sharing all the court cases that AML have lost and also other similar cases like the Rangers one. Does anyone know the citation of all the AML cases lost so far at court or FTT?

I am inline like most of us to get stung next April by HMRC on Tax on my loans. The idea of fighting AML is a good one I would be happy to contribute towards a pool fund to challenge AML/Knox. There are a couple of things that would give us a good case, firstly HMRC announced in the 2016 Budget that disguised remuneration would be subject to a loan charge, AML did not inform anyone about this but they should of as it meant that they continued to take money from us knowing we would get hit with a loan charge. If we actually didnt take out a loan but a remuneration agreement we have been misold and AML will have to compensate.

On the concerns about paying loans back my understanding is the the Trustees are bound to represent our best interests and asking for the loans back clearly isnt.

[cojak]

This forum is moderated GammaMadrid, no slagging people off please. LandRover has been helping many people since 2013 - you’ve just turned up last month. Or you’re a sock puppet.

[GammaMadrid]

Accountants and advisers made millions out of this over the last 20 years. It's not as if HMRC didn't know that many were being conned. Upon the first tax return going in, there should have been a HMRC response and severe warning sent out, but they dropped the ball and left the industry to flourish and years of so-called liability to build up, then they get Tories to bring about retrospective legislation to mop up all the mess.

And where were you when NTRT were fighting the retrospective legislation?

Amazing the number of those affected by LC who did nothing in 2008. Then expect everyone else to help when they are caught out.

Though it will be nothing relative to the whining of contractors when public sector reforms go public. And having knifed everyone else expect support.

[LandRover]

Hi Has any that used AML setup with Ltd Co setup received the additional CT Tax demand for years involved in the scheme?It's muddling the mess even more. I am already looking for settlement. But how does this additional CT demand work and will it mean I will end up paying almost the whole loan amount as Tax...So angry at my bloody accountant who conned me into this scheme!!!

Accountants and advisers made millions out of this over the last 20 years. It's not as if HMRC didn't know that many were being conned. Upon the first tax return going in, there should have been a HMRC response and severe warning sent out, but they dropped the ball and left the industry to flourish and years of so-called liability to build up, then they get Tories to bring about retrospective legislation to mop up all the mess.

[jazzyg]

AML with Ltd Company setup

Hi Has any that used AML setup with Ltd Co setup received the additional CT Tax demand for years involved in the scheme?It's muddling the mess even more. I am already looking for settlement. But how does this additional CT demand work and will it mean I will end up paying almost the whole loan amount as Tax...So angry at my bloody accountant who conned me into this scheme!!!