Ok, So where is HMRC vulnerable

[webberg]

I doubt BG has a £1m fighting fund let alone £10m.

Of course, money itself is no guarantee of succeeding but it helps.

We don't have any fighting fund because that is not what we're doing!

We are funded for the exercise we advertise and which our clients have bought into.

See above for a longer explanation.

[Loan Ranger]

We don't have any fighting fund because that is not what we're doing!

We are funded for the exercise we advertise and which our clients have bought into.

See above for a longer explanation.

At some point you may need one to challenge the LC, unless you're counting on having things done and dusted before anyone has to pay it (31 Jan 2020).

[GreenMirror]

HMRC have no duty of care (deliberately) so this isn't a lever, or even a vague possibility. Paying the right tax remains your problem.

I have heard that one before and I was amazed. Yet it seems to be true!

HMRC seem to be able to determine what the right amount of tax is and who pays it. Look at the recent HMRC-Rangers case. HMRC "won" and the "loans" were not "loans". The company owed the tax. However the company is in liquidation. They are trying to move the tax owe to the "beneficiaries".

Tax can be very taxing!

Regarding alienating the IT community, I think the public sector changes moving to private sector will alienate quite a few. Though, allegedly, HMRC ignored the public sector changes anyway. And I bet most would take any money offered whether it was offered by HMRC or any other organization. These changes will hit QDOS and IPSE quite hard so it will be interesting to see how they respond.

[webberg]

At some point you may need one to challenge the LC, unless you're counting on having things done and dusted before anyone has to pay it (31 Jan 2020).

We may need such a fund in due course but probably not to challenge the LC.

I'm not sure what grounds there might be for that? Human rights - almost no chance of winning that one? Unlawful exercise of a legal power by HMRC - probably much the same?

We do have grounds for believing that in many instances, the charge should not apply but unless we are forced to by clients who wish to pay for a Judicial Review on the above (+ other grounds), our funds will be used for a legal challenge that we think has more legs.

[webberg]

I have heard that one before and I was amazed. Yet it seems to be true!

HMRC seem to be able to determine what the right amount of tax is and who pays it. Look at the recent HMRC-Rangers case. HMRC "won" and the "loans" were not "loans". The company owed the tax. However the company is in liquidation. They are trying to move the tax owe to the "beneficiaries".

Tax can be very taxing!

That is just not true.

Lord Hodge decided that the sum arising from the employer (Rangers) to the employee became taxable and subject to PAYE at the point it arose.

That was before the money was subsequently sent to a trust who loaned it the employer.

In theory therefore the money paid to the trust was the employees money which was then loaned back to them.

So the loans are loans.

[phil@pmtc]

I've said this before.



EDMs, petitions, writing to your MP. Total utter fecking waste of time. Been there, got that useless t-shirt.
.

I wouldn't say its useless, I can absolutely without doubt state that HMRC are currently much more concerned about the lobbying to turn public perception than they are about any technical challenge to the LC on which they remain worryingly confident. They are v annoyed about the latest newspaper articles and the EDM in particular. Bare in mind, they spent a lot of time themselves carefully managing the perception of tax avoidance purely so they can do this.
Unfortunately I cant evidence exactly how I know as id be dropping a contact right in a big mess but they are most definitely in a position of being ITK.
Of course, even if the whole world ends up agreeing that the loan charge is scandalous, it doesn't mean HMRC have to give the money back so I guess in that respect I do agree.

I do agree a 10m fighting fund to select the best legal team available would also be a huge help!

[MyxALot]

They are v annoyed about the latest newspaper articles and the EDM in particular. Bare in mind, they spent a lot of time themselves carefully managing the perception of tax avoidance purely so they can do this.

That shows their arrogance. Did they really think they could shaft 100,000 workers (inc. low-paid NHS agency staff) and not expect there to be a backlash?!

And it's only going to get worse for them.