Loan Charge on BBC Front Page

[Fred Bloggs]

Mainly because HMRC haven't litigated many. They prefer not to and use fear thru overwhelming financial and political clout to force capitulation. If a scheme is proved valid that power would be significantly less.

It also took until from approx 2004 to 2017 for all the finest legal minds to come to a conclusion as to how such schemes should be treated. But apparently it should have been obvious to Joe Contractor.

PS The BBC article was achieved underpinned by great work from core LCAG members and the opinion-splitting Phil Manley. It takes hard work to get visibility.

(My bold + underline) - Well, I am not Einstein or Sherlock Holmes by any means. But back when we were all getting calls to join these schemes a common sales patter was -

Scheme - It's a loan just like you'd get from Barclays or someone.

Me - Yeah, but I'd have to pay that back?

Scheme - You have to pay this one back too, but we take care of it all, nudge, wink etc....

Me - Sorry, I'm not falling for that, it sounds too good to be true.

[BrilloPad]

(My bold + underline) - Well, I am not Einstein or Sherlock Holmes by any means. But back when we were all getting calls to join these schemes a common sales patter was -

Scheme - It's a loan just like you'd get from Barclays or someone.

If only they had said that. Usually it was avoid IR35. And avoid running your own company. It is fully QC approved(not mentioned that the QC approved part was just part of the opinion).

It has been running years. And everyone is doing it. HMRC are aware.

[lowpaidworker]

If only they had said that. Usually it was avoid IR35. And avoid running your own company. It is fully QC approved(not mentioned that the QC approved part was just part of the opinion).

It has been running years. And everyone is doing it. HMRC are aware.

and don't forget the glossy websites and pamphlets saying HMRC Approved. HMRC knew these Umbrellas were using that approved language and did nothing until the evidence was put in front of them around a year ago. Now they scream from the rooftops "look at all these promoters we are chasing.... yay aren't we good" when in reality for 15 years they did sod all and let it go.

[dammit chloe]

(My bold + underline) - Well, I am not Einstein or Sherlock Holmes by any means. But back when we were all getting calls to join these schemes a common sales patter was -

Scheme - It's a loan just like you'd get from Barclays or someone.

Me - Yeah, but I'd have to pay that back?

Scheme - You have to pay this one back too, but we take care of it all, nudge, wink etc....

Me - Sorry, I'm not falling for that, it sounds too good to be true.

Well Keith Gordon was right again this week.

You bold the line but fail to address it and instead chose to make up a story instead. well done. The point was the law allowed it until 2017 until a new precedent was set. And because they couldn't agree for so long the result was tacit acceptance and a larger market.

[dammit chloe]

and don't forget the glossy websites and pamphlets saying HMRC Approved. HMRC knew these Umbrellas were using that approved language and did nothing until the evidence was put in front of them around a year ago. Now they scream from the rooftops "look at all these promoters we are chasing.... yay aren't we good" when in reality for 15 years they did sod all and let it go.

Except Jesse Norman admitted they can't chase promoters as they did nothing illegal.

Except weirdly, HMRC have introduced another "retrospective effect" law that is intended to do just that.

Really confused about who is the tail and who is the dog in that relationship.

[Fred Bloggs]

If only they had said that. Usually it was avoid IR35. And avoid running your own company. It is fully QC approved(not mentioned that the QC approved part was just part of the opinion).

It has been running years. And everyone is doing it. HMRC are aware.

c'mon BP. Yes, they said all that stuff too. AND they sometimes said the schemes were "inland revenue approved" too. But didn't that just make it all sound even more too good to be true?

[Fred Bloggs]

Well Keith Gordon was right again this week.

You bold the line but fail to address it and instead chose to make up a story instead. well done. The point was the law allowed it until 2017 until a new precedent was set. And because they couldn't agree for so long the result was tacit acceptance and a larger market.

Straw man argument there. Complete lack of substance in your response I'm afraid.

I don't have a recording or a transcript but I would swear on oath I had that exact conversation multiple times. Didn't you?

[Iter]

This was covered on Today on R4 this morning.

I didn't have any involvement with loans, so I don't know too much about them.

If loans started in 1999, why didn't HMRC put a stop to the practice in the early noughties? Twenty years seems like an awful long time to wait to clamp down on them.

BBC Iradio player -‘0600 today show’, features this from about minute 52:00 to 57:00

[WalterWhite]

I had that exact conversation multiple times. Didn't you?

Given you are likely to be aware that Dammit Chloe (and most other participants of this thread) used a loan scheme, and therefore quite clearly (and regrettably) didn't have these conversations multiple times, I think there was no need for the above.

[dammit chloe]

Straw man argument there. Complete lack of substance in your response I'm afraid.

I don't have a recording or a transcript but I would swear on oath I had that exact conversation multiple times. Didn't you?

Short answer. No. Only involved with one scheme, a long, long time ago that was recommended by a contractor I knew after I was laid off in the dotcom crash. QC checked out. Former HMRC inspector raised no concerns. Never had any marketing calls for them.

There was no strawman just a statement of the state of the law until 2017 which you didn't address.

Anyway, ignored from now on.