Loan charge review - Government response is here

[LandRover]

That is depressing.

Use of DR schemes should have ceased in Dec 2010 when primary anti-avoidance legislation was introduced to prohibit DR. The writing was on the wall then that any attempts to circumvent this legislation would be like red rag to a bull.

It's a pity that HMRC didn't do more, over the years, to stop charlatans flogging this dodgy crap.

The amount of evidence, lies & deceit in emails & letters from Promoters & Accountants around Dec 2010 is shocking. I have AML emails that its a technical internal issue and absolutely no warnings or suggestion that people should consider their positions.

It's literally bordering on fraud to keep people locked in and continue as change over from EBT to PBT is administrative issue that AML will look after.

This evidence was ignored in the review, how SAM could not understand post 2010 people STILL did not understand or know the implications. The review appears a contrived outcome imo and an effort to appease and spin the review outcome. MPs will be educated, the fight MUST continue and will. Retrospection has to be removed completely.

[BrilloPad]

The amount of evidence, lies & deceit in emails & letters from Promoters & Accountants around Dec 2010 is shocking. I have AML emails that its a technical internal issue and absolutely no warnings or suggestion that people should consider their positions.

It's literally bordering on fraud to keep people locked in and continue as change over from EBT to PBT is administrative issue that AML will look after.

This evidence was ignored in the review, how SAM could not understand post 2010 people STILL did not understand or know the implications. The review appears a contrived imo and an effort to appease and spin the review outcome. MPs will be educated, the fight MUST continue and will. Retrospection has to be removed completely.

I have a friend of a friend who is one of the 6000. Do they really do no research?

On the other hand, HMRC should use their considerable powers to close the schemes down.

Remember the raid on Montpelier offices.....

[DealorNoDeal]

Having said that, it is hard to feel much sympathy for the 6000. Do they really do no research?

It's an indictment against HMRC too.

It's not hard to find the companies flogging this shyte (Google!). I'm sure HMRC has powers to request client lists. They could write to everyone in the schemes with a simple warning "what you are doing will end badly; get out now".

It's time HMRC got a bit more proactive.

[webberg]

Just to be clear, I meant no offence to you personally webberg. I have the utmost respect for what you've done and continue to do - I just don't see the outcome of the report in the same way as you.

Thank you for the kind words - absolutely no offense taken.

This sort of report is always going to attract differing opinions.

Ultimately, my focus is on dealing with the outcomes from it, rather than the "what ifs" or the "if only it had said..."

[webberg]

I have a friend of a friend who is one of the 6000. Do they really do no research?

On the other hand, HMRC should use their considerable powers to close the schemes down.

Remember the raid on Montpelier offices.....

HMRC has never had powers to "close the schemes down".

The report suggests that they should be granted such powers but I say, be careful what you wish for because we all know that if you grant HMRC an inch, they take a mile, your arm to the elbow and all your money.

The raid on Montpelier was bungled spectacularly and all the evidence collected was inadmissible in Court. In any event the case taken was not a loan scheme.

Ultimately, HMRC was armed with data and names and addresses of users and promoters but decided back in 2007/08/09 that chasing "wholesalers" was just too difficult. they also thought that there was little money in it for them. Low priority was assigned.

Only when it became clear that not only was there money to be had but that Parliament may take a dim view of their non action, did HMRC start to crank up their processes. By then the main beneficiaries had made tens of millions.

[lowpaidworker]

Ive read the report. Ive seen various twitter comments and other snippets of feedback.

So why am I the only one not jumping round the room. The whole report is about the loan charge and its effectiveness. All that this appears to do it take away the sledge hammer and give HMRC a drill.

The tax dispute is still open. Some might get their settlement money back i.e. those trying to settle before the Loan Charge kicked in. However gov says these schemes dont work and never did.

I saw a comment from Webber earlier. All this review has done has kicked the can down the road hence my comment, "take away the sledge hammer and give HMRC a drill". Until someone or an entity starts defeating HMRC in court (now is a good time to do it) HMRC will still come after you?

Nearly all of us still need to resolve the dispute and come to some agreement or settlement with HMRC

Am I wrong or just pesimistic.

[webberg]

Nearly all of us still need to resolve the dispute and come to some agreement or settlement with HMRC

Am I wrong or just pesimistic.

Neither.

The fact that the alteration of the loan charge rules makes absolutely no difference to your OBLIGATION to reach agreement as to the underlying tax liability HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.

(Nobody like a smug adviser, but we have been saying this - and have been ignored - ever since the loan charge was announced).

The loan charge was and is NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR AGREEING YOUR TAX POSITION.

[DealorNoDeal]

The loan charge was and is NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR AGREEING YOUR TAX POSITION.

No but, for many people, the LC forced their hand ie. settle now or get crucified in Jan 2020.

Also, the LC brought into scope closed years forcing people to make voluntary restitution.

No two ways about it, the LC was a game changer.

[webberg]

No but, for many people, the LC forced their hand ie. settle now or get crucified in Jan 2020.

Also, the LC brought into scope closed years forcing people to make voluntary restitution.

No two ways about it, the LC was a game changer.

I agree with the last statement.

Did the LC force people's hand to settle? Perhaps. There is however no direct connection between loan charge and settlement and I suggest that it suited some promoters and their advisers to create an hysteria around the loan charge, suggesting settlement was the "only" option.

In fact it never was and is not now. However for some who perhaps stood liable for defence funds etc, telling customers that settlement was the only option is cheaper than litigating.

Did the LC "force" voluntary restitution? Absolutely not. We are not strictly a settlement operation but none the less have engaged close on 400 clients for this. Many had closed years in their settlement calculations. Many chose, following our analysis and advice as to their settlement, to have closed years REMOVED from the settlement. The consequence of that of course is that you had to supply a defence against the loan charge - which we had and still have.

I completely understand why you are saying this, but if you subject the situation to the sort of forensic attention that a Court would apply, I would say that your first two statements are driven by a subjective mind set brought about for the reasons above (and others). It would be very difficult indeed to convince a Judge that you felt so threatened by the loan charge that you were "forced" into a settlement.

And yes, I expect to be shouted down on this issue, but before you attack the keyboard, please step back and think clearly about why you thought your choices had narrowed.

[lowpaidworker]

Neither.

The fact that the alteration of the loan charge rules makes absolutely no difference to your OBLIGATION to reach agreement as to the underlying tax liability HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.

(Nobody like a smug adviser, but we have been saying this - and have been ignored - ever since the loan charge was announced).

The loan charge was and is NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR AGREEING YOUR TAX POSITION.

I certainly dont think you are smug. I think think you have been clear all along.

I'd would have loved to the report to say all loans pre 2016 are now closed and final. Anyone taking out a loan post 2016 have a tax dispute. They havent said that and so I would say nearly everyone should seek some sort of advice to check what they have outstanding.

For me personally nothing has been resolved including the APN I settled in 2016 for tax year 09/10. I doubt I will get any of that payment back.