HMRC settlement Deadlines/delays and the LC

[regron]

If there only 4-5000 registered there are many thousands that haven't.

I have spoken to Montpelier in IOM today.... they say most of their people haven't registered , they also say that they dont think they need to as HMRC doesn't know who they are , nor do they believe, currently, that they will have to divulge this information.They also say that , of the many that HMRC do know about, very few have received, follower notices, APN or any enquiries as yet.

HMRC are in a complete shambles.


It seems to me that there is virtually no chance of many , if any , settlements before April.

Why anybody would take the advice of any promoter at this stage is beyond me. Each to their own though.

[webberg]

Arguably the trust is obliged to disclose loans anyway and even if they don't you will be required to disclose loans that are within the definitions.

I'm not a user of the scheme and arguably have a conflict of interest here but ...

Given how you have been treated by AML why do you have any faith in what they say?

Do you know who wrote the email and who they work for?

Who is their employer engaged by and for what purpose?

I would say that you ought to have a very cautious and perhaps even cynical view towards whatever you are being told.

[pateen]

I'm not sure what you expect from the wider community here? You will find that the advisers here have different opinions as to the appropriateness of CLSO and the degree to which it provides an answer, but we would all agree that it is non negotiable as far as HMRC is concerned. HMRC will run a calculation and if you don't like the answer, your only choice is to walk away and explore other ways to resist/pay.

I will however give you an opinion on your questions. (My opinion).

1. Options for calculating tax (for CSLO only). Loans and other payments are added to income in the year drawn and the tax calculated. Deduct tax paid, add interest = amount due.
2. Negotiations and how to achieve the lowest tax payable. See above. Unless there is gross arithmetical error, there is no negotiation.
3. Expenses and how to utilise these for each year. To date none have been allowed. I'm not saying that they never will be, nor that some may have achieved this, certainly we have not but we are pressing a number of cases to get some expenses allowed.
4. Extending payment terms and the best ways of getting them from 2 up to 5 years. This will depend on your individual circumstances. There is no set "plan" which will achieve an extension.
4. Any other methods of reducing that overall tax bill. If you settle via CLSO 2, what you see is what you get. If you are being told that a firm can negotiate a settlement down, other than for gross calculation error, ask them to base their entire fee on that.

Thanks Webberg though I am told a certain amount of expensis maybe put through.
What about the 15% commission that the loan companies used to charge.

Would that be expensible?

[webberg]

Thanks Webberg though I am told a certain amount of expensis maybe put through.
What about the 15% commission that the loan companies used to charge.

Would that be expensible?

Who has told you that expenses can be claimed?

As I said, we are in the process of arguing that directly with HMRC who say that this is not possible. We'll see.

I assume that by "commission" you mean the fee that the promoter took?

HMRC claim that this is your income and you are taxable upon it. As a "concession" however, they will not include it in the settlement figures.

I prefer the view that the fee was paid by the end client and/or agency to the promoter, was never your income and you cannot therefore be taxed on it.

If HMRC's view is correct and the money is deemed to be yours and you pay that to the promoter, then it will NOT be tax deductible as it fails to meet the criteria of being

"wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties"

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Why anybody would take the advice of any promoter at this stage is beyond me. Each to their own though.

I wasn't taking any advice from them.... no reason to on the whole loan issue, I was merely passing on their comments.....frankly Im staggered that so few have registered.

[webberg]

We don't know how many have registered.

We know that mid May, there were around 3,500.

We know that many will have left registration until the last moment.

We have made an FOI request but do not yet have an answer.

[uppoocreek]

Can someone confirm if this is right?

What can you do if affected?

If you have an outstanding loan that was made after December 9th 2010, it should have been taxed as income when it was made, under the DR rules. Check that the tax has in fact been paid, and if not, we say arrange to pay as soon as possible. The earlier you pay, the less interest you’ll be charged.

Outstanding loans from before December 9th 2010 will become taxable on April 5th 2019, so you’ll have until then to resolve the issue, such as by repaying the loan or settling with HMRC.

[webberg]

Your post is incorrect I'm afraid.

The 2019 loan charge will apply to ALL loans whether drawn pre or post December 2010.

[uppoocreek]

Is that right? Because its actually a direct quote from a article on this very website!

Which makes one question any of the information here or any advice from anyone using it!!

Link to article below

https://www.contractoruk.com/ebt/new...uneration.html

[webberg]

Is that right? Because its actually a direct quote from a article on this very website!

Which makes one question any of the information here or any advice from anyone using it!!

Link to article below

https://www.contractoruk.com/ebt/new...uneration.html

The article is from September 2017. Legislation appeared in final form some months after that.

I can see no distinction in the legislation between pre and post December 2010 loans. If you can show me that, I'll happily eat humble pie.

I think the author was trying to get to what might be a sensible settlement position and in doing so, mixed legislative rules with practical matters and produced a reasonable suggestion but not for the reasons indicated.

There is no guarantee of accuracy or integrity in any article or post on this website or any other in this area. Most of us try to say what we genuinely believe to be correct and in areas like this where interpretation can shift as more is understood, it would be sensible to go to the very latest views and if necessary subject it to a third party review.