• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

AML 2019 Loan Charge

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pateen
    replied
    Yeah but I remember they did have some sort of email/contact where you could ask questions. Prob 2 years ago when I contacted them but they did provide me with some information at the time

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by pateen View Post
    Thanks Cojak but couldn't find anything useful in that thread.

    Tried all the numbers and email address suggested here in the last week but nothing
    That's not surprising you are trying to find people who disappeared 7+ years ago...

    Leave a comment:


  • pateen
    replied
    Thanks Cojak but couldn't find anything useful in that thread.

    Tried all the numbers and email address suggested here in the last week but nothing

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by pateen View Post
    Hey Folks,

    Also bumping up this thread. Looking for any phone number or contact in AML who can give information on what schemes I was in.

    Many Thanks,
    Pat
    Take your pick… https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...-aml-knox.html

    Leave a comment:


  • pateen
    replied
    Hey Folks,

    Also bumping up this thread. Looking for any phone number or contact in AML who can give information on what schemes I was in.

    Many Thanks,
    Pat

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post
    I will allow this duplicated post, Phes has posted a very useful resource.

    Thank you Phes.
    Indeed. It's very interesting that almost all the offshore scheme companies have a similar UK domiciled twin. No doubt that's how agencies in the UK saw the scheme and it satisfied their requirements of no off shore entities in the supply chain. What a shame they didn't scratch at the paper thin veneer of UK domicile. Their finger would have gone right through at the slightest touch.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    I will allow this duplicated post, Phes has posted a very useful resource.

    Thank you Phes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phes
    replied
    I've recently come across a list on Opencorprates that links all crooked AML/Knox umbrellas. Don't let them sting you like they me (and countless other contractors)

    https://opencorporates.com/corporate...of%20Companies

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    Originally posted by stonehenge View Post
    Or is that a silly notion?
    Not at all.

    Most have a mix of open and closed years.

    If the situation works out as HMRC expect, open years will be settled or agreed by a Tribunal.

    Closed years can be settled of course, but where they are excluded, will become liable to the loan charge (in HMRC eyes).

    Where there is a fight and the loan charge is payable it's entirely possible that the total paid - open years plus loan charge, even after set off, will be more than just settling. If so, no refund.

    Leave a comment:


  • d70hef
    replied
    Originally posted by stonehenge View Post
    In that case not settling, and falling into the LC, only makes any sense if you intend to fight.

    The OP is probably an unusual case. I expect, for the majority of people, the LC would work out more expensive than settling.

    Maybe it's just me, but it seems a bit perverse that the LC should ever be a lower amount than settling. Surely, HMRC should be incentivising people to settle? Or is that a silly notion?
    Thanks Stonehenge and Webberg for your advice. I appreciate that the worst case scenario in this situation is the most likely . I won’t be making any rash decisions. I do find it slightly perverse that in trying to settle the amount is greater than the loan charge. Then again, nothing about this situation is normal.

    All I would add is that can HRMC really argue that a 53.88% charge is fair and reasonable. It seems that 45% is the maximum amount that they argued would bring this legislation into effect.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X