HMRC settlement Deadlines/delays and the LC

[shookshiver]

You can disagree all you like but if the law asks you to disclose to HMRC loan balances that are the basis of a tax charge, and you do not, then you will have to deal with the consequences.

An employer advising HMRC of loans made for the purposes of their own employer compliance, is NOT you complying with your obligations.

The loan charge is on the employer, that's true, but the transfer provisions are a lot more extensive than the usual PAYE rules and at the moment at least HMRC say that they will - in most cases - look to the employee.

If you are planning on not meeting your legal obligations, take advice as to the consequences.

Heres why i disagree with the loan charge and peoples seemingly scant regard for making sure that Parliament are held to account

HMRC's demands are in essence injust. The have made demands that will severely impact many people adversely, demands that were not in contravention of known laws at the time. Its imperative that we change our language to support what we all know to be true and that is HMRC are acting outside of the rule of law. HMRC are a rule to themselves and are acting dictatorially and there actions are not supported by the notion of Good Governance at all. What Parliament is doing is simply "making" up laws on a whim and then using such laws to criminalize innocent people.

Its important that we do no use your logic or reasoning or language because it does not convey correctly the "criminality" or injustice that is Parliament/HMRC regarding this loan charge. What if they determine that those who are using LTDs as a vehicle for tax saving in the purchase of property is now illegal and HMRC/Parliament determine that all directors and beneficiaries of these tax exemptions owe them tax, or those using ISAs or pension funds.

I can name countries in our world that do not obey the rule of law (tyrannical governments) but would be hard pressed to conceive of something like a Loan Charge. We have to at the very lease do all we can to expose this and fight this

[foobar]

Heres why i disagree with the loan charge and peoples seemingly scant regard for making sure that Parliament are held to account

HMRC's demands are in essence injust. The have made demands that will severely impact many people adversely, demands that were not in contravention of known laws at the time. Its imperative that we change our language to support what we all know to be true and that is HMRC are acting outside of the rule of law. HMRC are a rule to themselves and are acting dictatorially and there actions are not supported by the notion of Good Governance at all. What Parliament is doing is simply "making" up laws on a whim and then using such laws to criminalize innocent people.

Its important that we do no use your logic or reasoning or language because it does not convey correctly the "criminality" or injustice that is Parliament/HMRC regarding this loan charge. What if they determine that those who are using LTDs as a vehicle for tax saving in the purchase of property is now illegal and HMRC/Parliament determine that all directors and beneficiaries of these tax exemptions owe them tax, or those using ISAs or pension funds.

I can name countries in our world that do not obey the rule of law (tyrannical governments) but would be hard pressed to conceive of something like a Loan Charge. We have to at the very lease do all we can to expose this and fight this

Get onto LCAG and join them. This is a scrap, a dog fight and HMRC deserve back every bit of ill treatment they have dished out to us.

[webberg]

Its important that we do no use your logic or reasoning or language because it does not convey correctly the "criminality" or injustice that is Parliament/HMRC regarding this loan charge. What if they determine that those who are using LTDs as a vehicle for tax saving in the purchase of property is now illegal and HMRC/Parliament determine that all directors and beneficiaries of these tax exemptions owe them tax, or those using ISAs or pension funds.

In my defence, the statements I made are not "my" logic, reasoning or language but rather an explanation of the situation and a pointer to all that transgressing what is the law of the land, has consequences.

By all means make noise about the unjustness and worse of the situation.

However, if the law imposes certain obligations, then you have to either change the law or break it. As an adviser, I'm never going to recommend breaking it.

[Mrcurrey]

In my defence, the statements I made are not "my" logic, reasoning or language but rather an explanation of the situation and a pointer to all that transgressing what is the law of the land, has consequences.

By all means make noise about the unjustness and worse of the situation.

However, if the law imposes certain obligations, then you have to either change the law or break it. As an adviser, I'm never going to recommend breaking it.

Sure but there in lays the problem. Hmrc have very dangerously invented a retrospective law and misrepresented it in parliament. So no participant can be proven to have broken any law as the law didn't exist at the time of participation in fact participation was transparent and open with hmrc hence the dotas numbers.

It's totally illogical that an employee or contractor can be accused of breaking any law by refusing to settle. Until a Supreme Court specifies otherwise.

If this is allowed to continue come 2019 then no one is safe. Why invest in anything for at any point in time
Hmrc move the goalposts.

For example Parliament could pass through legalisation that Householders who earn more than £50,000 household income should have paid 45% on all their isa income since 1999. There's little if no difference.

My personal view to wtt in order of negotiation (if charge not totally removed) In order of priority

1) charge only applies to employer no liability shift to employee or contractor, leglislation updated. All scheme promoters are fined.

2) charge applies only date from Entering a scheme after royal assent, leglislation updated.

Extreme last resort

3) time to pay has no maximum time limit and the repayment amount is calculated based on households income and expenditure calculations. Similar to tax credits but in reverse. (Surplus income percentage)

I remain very confident that the first person hmrc takes to court for non payment or settlement would end in a defeat for them. And thus make them a look total embarresment and wasting of taxpayers money.

From a neutrals viewpoint and if I was consulting hmrc as business advisor as what to do I would tell them to opt for point 1.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Sure but there in lays the problem. Hmrc have very dangerously invented a retrospective law and misrepresented it in parliament. So no participant can be proven to have broken any law as the law didn't exist at the time of participation in fact participation was transparent and open with hmrc hence the dotas numbers.

It's totally illogical that an employee or contractor can be accused of breaking any law by refusing to settle. Until a Supreme Court specifies otherwise.

If this is allowed to continue come 2019 then no one is safe. Why invest in anything for at any point in time
Hmrc move the goalposts.

For example Parliament could pass through legalisation that Householders who earn more than £50,000 household income should have paid 45% on all their isa income since 1999. There's little if no difference.

My personal view to wtt in order of negotiation (if charge not totally removed) In order of priority

1) charge only applies to employer no liability shift to employee or contractor, leglislation updated. All scheme promoters are fined.

2) charge applies only date from Entering a scheme after royal assent, leglislation updated.

Extreme last resort

3) time to pay has no maximum time limit and the repayment amount is calculated based on households income and expenditure calculations. Similar to tax credits but in reverse. (Surplus income percentage)

I remain very confident that the first person hmrc takes to court for non payment or settlement would end in a defeat for them. And thus make them a look total embarresment and wasting of taxpayers money.

From a neutrals viewpoint and if I was consulting hmrc as business advisor as what to do I would tell them to opt for point 1.

I am sure we all wish you were right.

[JamesBennett]

Hey all.

Just got a loan charge letter through, so hoping for advice.

I was employed by Kinsella from September 2006 to September 2007. When I left, any outstanding loans were settled via the usual means back in the day.
Since then - everything has been above board and I've spent a while overseas, leaving the UK in 2010
HMRC wrote to me about investigating the 2007/2008 tax year, focusing on Kinsella.
HMRC claim they wrote to me with a settlement option in 2014, but they sent it to an overseas address where I wasn't living - after settling up my affairs after leaving the UK in 2010 they told me over the phone that it was all done and I didn't need to tell them anything again unless I moved back to the UK, including my address.
I was back in and out of the UK a few times, back now and have received the loan charge letter.

I've called HMRC but the self-described minion on the phone told me show knows nothing so I have to wait for someone to call me back (not holding my breath).

So my questions are:

* Seeing as they have only written to me about investigating 2007/2008 - is this the only year I am liable for?
* I don't have anything outstanding so based off the wording of the letter I'm not liable for the loan charge - but how do they define outstanding? For example, is someone were to repay a loan via a trust in 2007, would that be classed as repaid under their confusing rules?
* Am I still liable for nay tax/NI on the loan amount, and if so any idea on the percentages? The HMRC website is as confusing and unhelpful as expected.
* I simply don't have the money to pay back anything at the moment - seriously have nothing. How flexible are they on repayments?

Thanks in advance! Any recommendations for professional advice as well would be appreciated.

[me206et]

Hey all.

Thanks in advance! Any recommendations for professional advice as well would be appreciated.

Phil at dsw for settlement help
Graham at wtt/ big group more into trying to fight it.

Both will happily take to you for free and give a little advice.

Find both with Google as not allowed to advertise on here.

[Thin White Duke]

Hey all.

Just got a loan charge letter through, so hoping for advice.

I was employed by Kinsella from September 2006 to September 2007. When I left, any outstanding loans were settled via the usual means back in the day.
Since then - everything has been above board and I've spent a while overseas, leaving the UK in 2010
HMRC wrote to me about investigating the 2007/2008 tax year, focusing on Kinsella.
HMRC claim they wrote to me with a settlement option in 2014, but they sent it to an overseas address where I wasn't living - after settling up my affairs after leaving the UK in 2010 they told me over the phone that it was all done and I didn't need to tell them anything again unless I moved back to the UK, including my address.
I was back in and out of the UK a few times, back now and have received the loan charge letter.

I've called HMRC but the self-described minion on the phone told me show knows nothing so I have to wait for someone to call me back (not holding my breath).

So my questions are:

* Seeing as they have only written to me about investigating 2007/2008 - is this the only year I am liable for?
* I don't have anything outstanding so based off the wording of the letter I'm not liable for the loan charge - but how do they define outstanding? For example, is someone were to repay a loan via a trust in 2007, would that be classed as repaid under their confusing rules?
* Am I still liable for nay tax/NI on the loan amount, and if so any idea on the percentages? The HMRC website is as confusing and unhelpful as expected.
* I simply don't have the money to pay back anything at the moment - seriously have nothing. How flexible are they on repayments?

Thanks in advance! Any recommendations for professional advice as well would be appreciated.

I'm in a similar situation.

Received letter today. I used Kinsella/Keypay and repaid loans in 2010. Can't get through to HMRC to tell them, yet again, that the loans were repaid in 2010 and therefore I don't have anything outstanding.

I'll be interested to see what response you get when called back. I'll keep trying to get through and see what their response is. They have had all information regarding my repayment for several years now.

[HollyGolightly]

In the same position...

Just got a loan charge letter through, so hoping for advice.

I was employed by Kinsella from September 2006 to September 2007.

I am in a similar position - I took advice from my accountant when I first received the letter in 2013 and my accountant appealed on my behalf and HMRC accepted my appeal, and the tax amount had been suspended. My accountant challenged the tax amount that HMRC had calculated and I have not heard anything from HMRC since apart from:

1. A letter in 2014 regarding the CLSO, which, having read some of the threads on here and speaking to my accountant, I decided not to settle.
2. A lovely letter today about the April 2019 loan charge

I am in a financial position to settle for the one year that they have written to me about, and am going to seek advice from my accountant again but have the following questions after doing some more reading here:

1. If I settle the amount they quoted in 2013 which was for one year only, will they still attempt to apply the loan charge for other years I was in the scheme (EBT)?
2. How will they calculate the tax / amount I owe on this and will there be a chance for me to challenge their calculations?

I very much appreciate any advice (I have also contacted Phil@dws by LinkedIn for some private advice).

[webberg]

The loan charge letter is a template that is part of the "awareness" campaign for the upcoming 2019 charge. It does not need a response.

Receipt of the letter may also not mean that you used a scheme. We have examples of letters being sent to people who have never used a scheme. Equally we have many clients who have used a scheme and who have not had a letter.

In terms of settling etc, your options are:

1. Settle via CLSO 2 for all years, whether enquiries are open or not
2. Settle via CLSO 2 for all enquiry years and leave non enquiry years to be mopped up by the loan charge
3. Don't settle and continue to resist

Note, that in the above, paying the loan charge on all/some years is NOT settlement and is NOT an end to the enquiry process. Even if you pay the charge, you will still have to settle eventually.

If the amount you pay via the loan charge is more than the eventual settlement, you will not be able to claim a refund of the difference.

There is a calculator on our website that is free to use and will give you a pretty accurate view on the numbers and some of the mitigations you can use to manage the loan charge and calculate a time to pay.