WARNING: DO NOT SETTLE UNDER CLSO2 re. 2019 Loan Charge

[dammit chloe]

Settle under CLSO2 and you are entering a COMMERCIAL contract with NO CHANcE on this earth of getting your money back. Ever. Even if the 2019 Loan charge gets finally amended, changed, thrown out whatever - settle under CLSO2 and your cash is gone. Forever, down the toilet.

Funny how I entered a commercial contract with my Umbrella Company and it was magicked away by HMRC ( or at least that is what their "view" is ).

What's to say that a settlement contract is challenged and deemed to have been signed "under duress or threat". It clearly is considering the terms used and the threat of penalty for what are supposed to be voluntary settlements.

[webberg]

Funny how I entered a commercial contract with my Umbrella Company and it was magicked away by HMRC ( or at least that is what their "view" is ).

What's to say that a settlement contract is challenged and deemed to have been signed "under duress or threat". It clearly is considering the terms used and the threat of penalty for what are supposed to be voluntary settlements.

The commercial contract between you and HMRC has not been removed or amended. It's just that a Judge is likely to find that what was described as a loan should in reality be salary. The contract remains valid as a means of passing money.

Unfortunately, the fact that tax law says that the money is not a loan, makes no difference to whether in contract law the loan is ultra vires (i.e. outside the legal definitions and therefore treated as never having happened).

The clue to the settlement is that it is voluntary.

There can be no question of duress. Nobody is forcing you to sign.

True that the options if you don't, which are continued enquiries, perhaps litigation, perhaps resolution via something like Big Group, are perhaps unattractive in terms of time, cost and no doubt harassment from HMRC looking to impose their view of liability, but you know this now. Therefore claiming that HMRC undertaking its duties and using the tools granted it by Parliament, is never going to seen as duress or threat by a Court.

[LaurieDriver]

What is LCAG

**UPDATE**

i have now found LCAG,, But does anyone know how i can contact TRM or their representatives to find out what loans i had .. Thanks in advance.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________


Received my letter from HMRC a week or so ago, looking for help on what i should or can do, What is LCAG because i think i may need to join for something i did 15yrs ago that has come back to haunt me.

Please don't do that.

Instead, join LCAG and join into the "action" as things are hotting up...!

[Aki1]

Received my letter from HMRC a week or so ago, looking for help on what i should or can do, What is LCAG because i think i may need to join for something i did 15yrs ago that has come back to haunt me.

Link to LCAG: https://www.hmrcloancharge.info/

[dammit chloe]

The commercial contract between you and HMRC has not been removed or amended. It's just that a Judge is likely to find that what was described as a loan should in reality be salary. The contract remains valid as a means of passing money.

Unfortunately, the fact that tax law says that the money is not a loan, makes no difference to whether in contract law the loan is ultra vires (i.e. outside the legal definitions and therefore treated as never having happened).

The clue to the settlement is that it is voluntary.

There can be no question of duress. Nobody is forcing you to sign.

True that the options if you don't, which are continued enquiries, perhaps litigation, perhaps resolution via something like Big Group, are perhaps unattractive in terms of time, cost and no doubt harassment from HMRC looking to impose their view of liability, but you know this now. Therefore claiming that HMRC undertaking its duties and using the tools granted it by Parliament, is never going to seen as duress or threat by a Court.

Thankyou for the response Webberg. I have always struggled to to speak/talk/understand legalese and financial matters so I use words in a more Clapham Omnibus fashion most of the time. I'm sure the mafia never forced anyone to sign anything either, things were just explained to them and they had a change of heart. :-)

I did speak to one of your guys a week or so ago and was somewhat surprised by his answer but didn't really dig deeper as it was too soon after learning about this whole thing and my head was spinning. Maybe I'll follow up with my understanding being better now.

Do appreciate your taking time to answer on these threads.

[NotAllThere]

Thankyou for the response Webberg. I have always struggled to to speak/talk/understand legalese and financial matters so I use words in a more Clapham Omnibus fashion most of the time. I'm sure the mafia never forced anyone to sign anything either, things were just explained to them and they had a change of heart. :-)

One of the difficulties of tax law is ensuring it doesn't fall foul of legislation against demanding money with menaces. The thing is, it's the government doing it, they write the legislation, and, by and large, it means what they intend. Usually.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

The clue to the settlement is that it is voluntary.

There can be no question of duress. Nobody is forcing you to sign.

True that the options if you don't, which are continued enquiries, perhaps litigation, perhaps resolution via something like Big Group, are perhaps unattractive in terms of time, cost and no doubt harassment from HMRC looking to impose their view of liability, but you know this now. Therefore claiming that HMRC undertaking its duties and using the tools granted it by Parliament, is never going to seen as duress or threat by a Court.

This may well be true, but, hopefully a decent lawyer in the court of Human Rights would be able to show that the timescales set which limit any effective challenge set by HMRC are tantamount to duress.

If we dont fight this, god knows what they might dream up next.

[webberg]

Thankyou for the response Webberg. I have always struggled to to speak/talk/understand legalese and financial matters so I use words in a more Clapham Omnibus fashion most of the time. I'm sure the mafia never forced anyone to sign anything either, things were just explained to them and they had a change of heart. :-)

I did speak to one of your guys a week or so ago and was somewhat surprised by his answer but didn't really dig deeper as it was too soon after learning about this whole thing and my head was spinning. Maybe I'll follow up with my understanding being better now.

Do appreciate your taking time to answer on these threads.

It's usually best to take this in baby steps and grow an understanding before committing to spending any more.

We will speak with you again if you wish and I'm sure that Tom and/or Rhys would have told you to take your time and not make any rash decisions.

[DeadDOTAS]

Rumour has it (actually two 'rumours'):

1) The Loan charge date is likely going to move by two years from 5th April 2019 to 5th April 2021
(and the settlement window extended by another year or two)
2) HMRC has got no IT capability (or contractors LoL) that could add the Loan charge flag to their main system in April 2019. Without that, it's pretty much impossible to flag individual tax payers internally as "LC candidates...".

Of course, it's only 'rumours' but the first messages are surfacing on the Twitter-sphere:
This may be HMRC's nudging way of coercing many more thousand ppl into contractual settlement, only to conclude in 2021 that the LC will be scrapped altogether!

Take it or leave it as you please. It ties in with our original warning though:

DO NOT SETTLE UNDER CLSO2 - once you paid under the settlement "opportunity", your cash is gone like a flash.....

Don't say we didn't warn you.

[Iter]

If the rumours are true this would need to be confirmed then before April 19?