Legal Challenge v Loan Charge

[GammaMadrid]

Cautiously optimistic, but QC opinions - no offence, but isn't that kind of how we got here in the first place?

The QC opinions were only only parts of the scheme - not the full picture. And sometimes QC opinions were ignored - like what Gittins did with DTA.

Either way it is the promoters fault.

The side with the deepest pockets will win. So HMRC it is then.....

[Groundhogdays]

The QC opinions were only only parts of the scheme - not the full picture. And sometimes QC opinions were ignored - like what Gittins did with DTA.

Either way it is the promoters fault.

The side with the deepest pockets will win. So HMRC it is then.....

I know, and I read one or two at the time, and even had my own scheme checked out by an independent tax specialist, who had no connection to the promoter. That's how wary I was. Although it checked out technically sound, his caveat was that it could be vulnerable to future legislation. Well, here we are...

Deepest pockets wins? Much of the time yes, but not when they leave so many with no choice but to make a stand. That could could turn out to be a mistake. You don't need a 3.2bn warchest to defeat this. And remember whose pockets this money is coming from ultimately.

[jrock]

As people may be aware from the ridiculous news of me injuring myself....I was in London yesterday. I was meeting up with LCAG and a (very) well known QC. In fact it was the steps outside the Chambers that I managed to fall down which wasn't exactly the impact i was hoping to have. Nevertheless...

There is a legal challenge against the LC and its an excellent one in my opinion. More news will be out over the coming week. Long way to go but its a genuine light and one we should all be delighted to see.

More info over the coming weeks but it was an extremely positive meeting and has provided a real chance of success. Clearly there will be a lot of questions and so LCAG/myself/a n others will be happy to provide answers as and when they arise.

Hi Phil, sorry to hear of your accident but glad to hear your on the mend.

Regarding this promising development on a legal challenge against the LC. What does this mean for those that have (or deciding) to settle?

If there's a real chance that the LC will be halted then should we settle still? The way I see it is if we settle and the LC is stopped then our settlement cash is gone.

[Dmac]

Hi Phil, sorry to hear of your accident but glad to hear your on the mend.

Regarding this promising development on a legal challenge against the LC. What does this mean for those that have (or deciding) to settle?

If there's a real chance that the LC will be halted then should we settle still? The way I see it is if we settle and the LC is stopped then our settlement cash is gone.

I think you're probably right. But even if the LC is defeated, will the HMRC's Disguised Remuneration regulations not still apply? Will they not chase those who used these schemes to now pay the tax they say is due?

This has opened a can of worms which may go on for years (LC19 or no LC19) unless settlement is agreed.

[Delendog]

I think you're probably right. But even if the LC is defeated, will the HMRC's Disguised Remuneration regulations not still apply? Will they not chase those who used these schemes to now pay the tax they say is due?

This has opened a can of worms which may go on for years (LC19 or no LC19) unless settlement is agreed.

They will still apply BUT for those with closed years the LC is the only way HMRC can target those loans. Without the LC closed years remain closed.

[Dmac]

They will still apply BUT for those with closed years the LC is the only way HMRC can target those loans. Without the LC closed years remain closed.

Ah, OK. I have no "open years" nor had any investigations / notice of any description, so what period do HMRC have to open previous years?

[Joolsey86]

Hi Dmac, they have 6 years. So anything back to 2011-2012.

[Clairol]

Open years

Hi,
Open and closed years are caught under the Loan Charge going back upto 20 years.
So your closed years become open under the Loan Charge, although I don’t believe they attract interest like the open ones do/already are.

[Groundhogdays]

Hi,
Open and closed years are caught under the Loan Charge going back upto 20 years.
So your closed years become open under the Loan Charge, although I don’t believe they attract interest like the open ones do/already are.

Do they become open years though? I thought the loan charge was just levied on outstanding loans with the lender, trust or regardless
Maybe not NICs either. It is becoming more apparent that the loan charge legislation was rushed out, and it is not particularly aligned with earlier legislation. Stuff like NICs is not chargeable income even for retrospective purposes and there is a statute of limitation also. Which is probably why it wasn't part of earlier CLSO calculations for open years, and is not mentioned in loan charge context. So don't be led into paying that one, either way.

Look at the latest Montpelier thread on this forum - quite a good background to NICs.

[dammit chloe]

Do they become open years though? I thought the loan charge was just levied on outstanding loans with the lender, trust or regardless
Maybe not NICs either. It is becoming more apparent that the loan charge legislation was rushed out, and it is not particularly aligned with earlier legislation. Stuff like NICs is not chargeable income even for retrospective purposes and there is a statute of limitation also. Which is probably why it wasn't part of earlier CLSO calculations for open years, and is not mentioned in loan charge context. So don't be led into paying that one, either way.

Look at the latest Montpelier thread on this forum - quite a good background to NICs.

I have seen this question mark over NICS several times but without anything near a clear view. Has anyone tried getting a settlement that excludes NICS for say pre 2010 loans.