Loan charge - review outcomes - impact on settlement

[dammit chloe]

A bit early to say don't you think? Be interesting to see what Graham, Phil and others have to say.

The worry is that many simply cannot pay. Especially those going back many years.

The document say there have been many attempts to close schemes down. Or at least that many warnings were given. Who reads government documents? Why is there no emphasis on HMRC closing down these schemes earlier?

The report smells badly.

Suspect you'll hear some of those thoughts soon.

[GammaMadrid]

Then what? Don’t settle, don’t pay loan charge and attempt litigation? Or is it game over?

A bit early to say don't you think? Be interesting to see what Graham, Phil and others have to say.

The worry is that many simply cannot pay. Especially those going back many years.

The document say there have been many attempts to close schemes down. Or at least that many warnings were given. Who reads government documents? Why is there no emphasis on HMRC closing down these schemes earlier?

The report smells badly.

[Boodog]

After NTRT lost, apart from TAA, then no.

It will take much more than LCAG to stand any chance against HMRC.

Then what? Don’t settle, don’t pay loan charge and attempt litigation? Or is it game over?

[GammaMadrid]

Anyone genuinely surprised by that?

After NTRT lost, apart from TAA, then no.

It will take much more than LCAG to stand any chance against HMRC.

[Dmac]

Should this be in a thread of its own? Effectively, HM Treasury has ignored APPG/LCAG and backed HMRC.

Anyone genuinely surprised by that?

[GammaMadrid]

No change: Report on time limits and the disguised remuneration loan charge - GOV.UK

Should this be in a thread of its own? Effectively, HM Treasury has ignored APPG/LCAG and backed HMRC.

[Iliketax]

No change: Report on time limits and the disguised remuneration loan charge - GOV.UK

[woftam]

Thanks for the response webberg,

I'm pleased that HMRC should provide proof and I have asked for this from them.

I guess I am deeply suspicious of HMRC's aggressive approach to the loan charge, particularly since Mel Stride's recent snub of LC review. It seems to me that it would be convenient if people who were in schemes that are many years old now, had open years, just in case HMRC find themselves not able to apply the LC on closed years. Probably me being cynical!

I think the test of this would be if other people in the same position (open years without any notification) responded in this thread. As they haven't I can only assume it is a mistake.

I also have open years but did not receive letters. I left the UK in 2008 and closed all tax affairs including a forwarding address. They sent letters post my leaving but did not process my change of address so they went to the old UK address so I did not get them. So when the time comes I will challenge through the court in my own country.

[TheUnseen]

Thanks for the response webberg,

I'm pleased that HMRC should provide proof and I have asked for this from them.

I guess I am deeply suspicious of HMRC's aggressive approach to the loan charge, particularly since Mel Stride's recent snub of LC review. It seems to me that it would be convenient if people who were in schemes that are many years old now, had open years, just in case HMRC find themselves not able to apply the LC on closed years. Probably me being cynical!

I think the test of this would be if other people in the same position (open years without any notification) responded in this thread. As they haven't I can only assume it is a mistake.

[webberg]

I too have had HMRC say that some of my years are open when I have never received any letter telling me words to that effect.

Is there anyway I can prove that they were closed?

Surely, this is a fraudulent move on behalf of HMRC?

You should ask HMRC to show you copies of the letters they claim were sent and if necessary the time stamped entries in their log.

Various cases have held that a simple statement from HMRC is not enough, nor is a generic "everybody involved had an assessment". The evidence needs to be specific and real.

You cannot prove they were closed, but you can show that the years were never open.

Be careful about using words like "fraudulent". That implies a deliberate act by a person or group of persons designed to extract money from another.

Are you suggesting that HMRC (60,000 or more people) are deliberately conspiring to extract money from you, outside the terms of the taxes acts and that ALL of these people are "in" on that?

I suggest it's more likely that some overworked, under compensated junior level employee has failed to check properly and/or misinterpreted the data.

More cock up than conspiracy.