Jesse Norman and loan charge

[ChimpMaster]

It's already in the Telegraph, which says that HMRC will not enforce LC if open enquiries were closed in the past.

[Invisiblehand]

It's already in the Telegraph, which says that HMRC will not enforce LC if open enquiries were closed in the past.

FT as well.

[PeterF]

"He has said that where loans etc have been fully disclosed and/or years closed, then the loan charge will not apply."

....I wonder what 'fully disclosed' means. Reported every year on P11D and part of a DOTAS-registered scheme - that 'full' enough, I wonder?

[Iliketax]

Yes. However my main point was that the Treasury can make changes at will if they want to. No need for legislation or finance bill.

That's a strange thing to say. Surely you would want the government to have to change the law.

[dammit chloe]

That's a strange thing to say. Surely you would want the government to have to change the law.

Not really. Ideally the law should be changed however we are at the deadlines, recess starts day after new PM and Brexit is the big issue.

Any legislative stuff will take months, this shows that they can possibly do it without all that. Even if it is just to settle things until the law can be changed.

Truth is HMRC has being getting away with changing the rules without approval for too long, time for some in our favour.

[dammit chloe]

"He has said that where loans etc have been fully disclosed and/or years closed, then the loan charge will not apply."

....I wonder what 'fully disclosed' means. Reported every year on P11D and part of a DOTAS-registered scheme - that 'full' enough, I wonder?

He didn't say "closed years" as we see them. He said where an enquiry has been opened and subsequently closed. Be lucky if a dozen people benefit. He did seem to hoodwink the Lords though. They may not be best pleased when they learn the truth.

[Iliketax]

Not really. Ideally the law should be changed however we are at the deadlines, recess starts day after new PM and Brexit is the big issue.

Any legislative stuff will take months, this shows that they can possibly do it without all that. Even if it is just to settle things until the law can be changed.

Truth is HMRC has being getting away with changing the rules without approval for too long, time for some in our favour.

If it is a change to the law then the LCAG's friends in Parliament can try to make further amendments to it. That was something that they can't do with a normal Finance Bill. For various reasons, Mr Johnson and his backers may want to do an earlier than normal Budget/Finance Bill. While that won't be before the autumn, it would still an opportunity for change.

[dammit chloe]

If it is a change to the law then the LCAG's friends in Parliament can try to make further amendments to it. That was something that they can't do with a normal Finance Bill. For various reasons, Mr Johnson and his backers may want to do an earlier than normal Budget/Finance Bill. While that won't be before the autumn, it would still an opportunity for change.

No amendments to law were allowed in the Finance bill but only because the Tories specifically disallowed them, a recent change I believe. Hence the NC26 fudge.

I don't know what the other routes to law change are but I am sure people are looking at them. End of august in particular is a critical date because people may be forced into settlement contracts they can't escape ( which may be another battle ).

Hence why I suggest that "guidelines" updates as a possible option to avoid this scenario in the first place while more permanent measures are sought.

[Iter]

We really are in a sad state of affairs when a blubbering idiot such as a finance minister is not clearly able to explain proposed changes and then for the old codgers in HOL to be so easily misguided. That performance from JN stunk of ballsh1t

[dammit chloe]

We really are in a sad state of affairs when a blubbering idiot such as a finance minister is not clearly able to explain proposed changes and then for the old codgers in HOL to be so easily misguided. That performance from JN stunk of ballsh1t

The people on that committee by and large are pretty astute. JN give the impression of concession and didn't correct when repeated back to him. Breach of ministerial code.