Lying to Parliament?

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Not sure how they can assess you on a loan that is not outstanding....if they and you cant prove you had it in the first place and there are no trustees to declare its outstanding I dont see why you need worry.If there is no evidence anywhere it will be impossible to tax you on it.

Dont take my word for it tho.

[starstruck]

Not sure how they can assess you on a loan that is not outstanding....if they and you cant prove you had it in the first place and there are no trustees to declare its outstanding I dont see why you need worry.If there is no evidence anywhere it will be impossible to tax you on it.

Dont take my word for it tho.

As far as HMRC are concerned. If a loan is waived, without being repaid fully in cash, it is still "outstanding"; even though to everyone else it is not "outstanding" as it has been written off. So they are applying a charge to a loan that exists only in their minds. So the tax is really on the original loan (without caring what has happened to it since, e.g. depreciation, write off etc..). It's pure retrospection.

[me206et]

As far as HMRC are concerned. If a loan is waived, without being repaid fully in cash, it is still "outstanding"; even though to everyone else it is not "outstanding" as it has been written off. So they are applying a charge to a loan that exists only in their minds. So the tax is really on the original loan (without caring what has happened to it since, e.g. depreciation, write off etc..). It's pure retrospection.

Yes, but if it had made money it would be taxable at the higher amount.

[starstruck]

Yes, but if it had made money it would be taxable at the higher amount.

Not sure what you mean about having made money. But the LC "outstanding" value is the original amount of the loan (converted to GBP if not already) minus any repayments made (converted to GBP if not already) so when the lender writes off all or part of the loan, whilst that removes the obligation to repay, it does not reduce the original value, nor does ccy depreciation; so you have nothing outstanding as far as the lender is concerned (which means no loan), yet you still have a loan as far as HMRC is concerned. It's mind-bending really.

[outsidein]

If Mel Stride did lie to Parliament, He would have breached the Ministerial Code of conduct

As a result of that speech, many MPs voted in favour of the legislation - only now are they having their eyes opened by their affected constituents and 86 thus far have signed the Early Day Motion requesting it be amended to only start in 2017 - which would make it a fair(er) tax.

I'm thinking everyone should write to their MPs asking for Mel Stride to be held to the Ministerial Code, that his lies and the accompanying bunkum about very few people being hurt misled the House to vote in favour of a signally nasty piece of legislation. Backing it up by pointing out that 86 (and growing) MPs are against its retrospective nature.

If they do take him to task on it, he will have to retract his lies or prove they were not.
If he was found to have intended to mislead the House, he should tender his resignation

Have you thought about joining the Loan Charge Action Group (LCAG) or WTT's Big Group? They are doing Sterling work and can provide a platform of support if nothing else.

I know many readers will think that we had it coming but if HMRC get away with retrospectively reinventing loans as income - its only a small step to deciding that all dividends paid from what they're calling PSCs as Disguised Remuneration and going back 20 years on that too. Divide and conquer - first it will be those companies that paid dividends to seemingly non-working/non-contributing directors

Frankly, if you do or don't agree with the Loan Charge, getting it limited to have no retroactive effect will make them think twice about whatever else they have planned for the flexible workforce!