AML 2019 Loan Charge

[stressed]

Thanks Bleakhse and others, really appreciate.

So in a nutshell what I gather:

1. Settle with HMRC to pay the income tax of 'loans' which is technically an income.
2. IF Knox or AML knock on the door to claim back the loan, then take them to court to prove HMRC has declared it as disguised remuneration.

Now couple of Q?
1. Does someone have any link to a publication where AML accepted that as a 'disguised remuneration' as I do not recall any if I am not mistaken. It would be good to keep it as a reference.
2. Can we contractor not just join up now atleast to fight back if AML / Knox comes to us asking for loan repayment and 'WE' all refuse. Can we establish that in this forum and unite is one decision etc asking a long shot. Just thinking out loud any preventive measures, can't really afford to be dragged in any related hell any more.

[BankingContract0r]

If AML, or any other promoter, tried to recall the loans they'd have a riot on their hands.

It makes me sick that they're now trying to scam substantial sums of money out of people just to release the loans.

There are other promoters who have done this free of charge when people have settled.

Do you know if IQ would charge for release?

[cojak]

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?

Thank you bleakhse, your contribution to this forum as a view from out the other side is much appreciated.

[Loan Ranger]

If AML, or any other promoter, tried to recall the loans they'd have a riot on their hands.

It makes me sick that they're now trying to scam substantial sums of money out of people just to release the loans.

There are other promoters who have done this free of charge when people have settled.

[Iliketax]

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.

I'm not aware of any of the Rangers case decisions where the court said that the loans were not actually loans. You can read the FTT decision here. Murray Group Holdings & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 692 (TC) (29 October 2012) Even HMRC said that the loans were not a sham. But that is completely irrelevant (unless you played for Rangers and got such a loan).

Please do not fall for another scum of 5% deed of release.

Absolutely.

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.

Yes, they can.

By ruling that the loans are disguised remuneration, that is what the 'loans' are. They cannot be both disguised remuneration and loans.

No, I think you have misunderstood the difference between tax law and commercial law.

There may be 101 reasons why the trustee could not enforce repayment. But tax law is not one of them.

[bleakhse]

This is one of the many issues with this punitive approach from HMRC; the loan still stands and there is nothing to stop it being recalled. Paying HMRC doesn't mean the loan is dealt with. You will need to purchase a deed of release. I've read figures of 5% of the total loan amount to do this.

Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure.

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?

[mayfire]

Another spanner to throw in to the works

What about student loans?
Will we have to pay out for the years being recalculated via settlement?



Everytime I think I'm making headway and reaching a final figure there is another huge cost to add on top, it seems never ending.

[BankingContract0r]

Q: If I have paid the taxes to HMRC, is there any possibility that Knox House knocking at my door to claim back the loan amount? or once I have paid the chapter will be closed? What actions HMR is taking to prevent us in that scenario. And legally would we be obliged if Knox House comes out of the blue and claiming it loan. That's the last thing to worry about which would eventually kill my life!!!!

Thanks

This is one of the many issues with this punitive approach from HMRC; the loan still stands and there is nothing to stop it being recalled. Paying HMRC doesn't mean the loan is dealt with. You will need to purchase a deed of release. I've read figures of 5% of the total loan amount to do this.

Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure.

[stressed]

Thanks Phil and Catanonia. Much appreciated.

@ Catanonia - would you be able to share any lines and spreadsheet etc your accountant prepared for expenses, I mean the exact justifications. The words with HMRC knocked out!

This would help me put my case forward as well, I shall tweak it obviously to put it in my words.

My case is straight forward though one last question:

Q: If I have paid the taxes to HMRC, is there any possibility that Knox House knocking at my door to claim back the loan amount? or once I have paid the chapter will be closed? What actions HMR is taking to prevent us in that scenario. And legally would we be obliged if Knox House comes out of the blue and claiming it loan. That's the last thing to worry about which would eventually kill my life!!!!

Thanks

[BankingContract0r]

As I said previously, yes you can claim certain expenses such as mileage. I got my accountant to work the figures, put in the 150 miles a day mileage and get that taken off. As the lady at HMRC said, as long as justified and proved with figures, you can do this. I was the poster that you mentioned.

Can I ask how you managed to justify this please? Was it simply a case of 'I live in location A and I had to travel to location X, Y, Z during this period' or there is some proof which is required?

Can monthly train tickets be claimed or would that be seen as regular travel?