Loan charge review - Government response is here

[webberg]

In other news I see LCAG's JR reveiw is being heard this morning at 10:30am.

Really hate all the jargon. Anyone understand what the arguement will be about at this stage..when do you hear the ruling/results... what happens next.

A Judicial Review (JR) is usually heard where there is some doubt as to the whether the law in question can or should be executed by a particular agency, in this case HMRC. Is that body capable of making a fair and reasonable decision? Are they equipped to make that decision? This can go to questions as to whether the law fits the UK constitution etc. So a wide ranging argument.

The hearing will be in the Administrative Court - a High Court. So a proper Judge.

A decision may be quick (few days) or delayed (several months) and largely depends on the urgency and whether there is a public interest in a quick decision.

That decision can be appealed - Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

A decision once final is binding on all parties.

As to what the specific argument is here, I don't know I'm afraid and I'm not going to guess here.

[Iliketax]

As to what the specific argument is here, I don't know I'm afraid

I don't know either. But bearing in mind the "IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands" thread, it is interesting that someone on Twitter has said:

[Robert Venables QC, for the taxpayer] positing that arrangements in question were tax mitigation, not tax avoidance. Accepts latter would mean it was well nigh impossible for the challenge to succeed. Thus RVQC focused on loans being bone fide loans with genuine possibility of being repaid.

[webberg]

Agreed that the result of the JR either way will be difficult to reconcile with the present HMRC view of schemes.

Mind you, understanding what that view is in any detail is like nailing jelly to a wall.

[dammit chloe]

I don't know either. But bearing in mind the "IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands" thread, it is interesting that someone on Twitter has said:

It's on A1P1 grounds ( right to enjoy property ). I don't know the detail arguments. Same person also commented that it is likely that HMRC is going to pursue the "always taxable" argument.

Relatively low chance of success but it has been suggested that the wide, unproven and indiscriminate nature of the Loan Charge gives it a better chance of success than previous similar cases.

For me, it is simply another line of attack, win or lose. Can't just roll over.

[Iliketax]

It's on A1P1 grounds

So similar to Cartref but even trickier because pre-December 2010 loans are no longer within scope of the loan charge?

[lowpaidworker]

So similar to Cartref but even trickier because pre-December 2010 loans are no longer within scope of the loan charge?

Is that like a half in half out arguement given 2010 is roughly half way between 1999 and now.

Just trying to follow and gain a basic understanding...

[dammit chloe]

So similar to Cartref but even trickier because pre-December 2010 loans are no longer within scope of the loan charge?

From what I read yes, and one of the main hurdles is to differentiate it from that. Least that's what I read on twitter. I think there are pros and cons to the Cartref case but I am not a tax nerd so really only read the high level scuttlebutt.

[webberg]

For me, it is simply another line of attack, win or lose. Can't just roll over.

But even if the loan charge disappeared tomorrow, if you have open enquiries from HMRC you will need to agree the liability and perhaps pay the tax.

The loan charge has always only ever been a payment on account mechanism if you have open and unsettled enquiries.

[dammit chloe]

But even if the loan charge disappeared tomorrow, if you have open enquiries from HMRC you will need to agree the liability and perhaps pay the tax.

The loan charge has always only ever been a payment on account mechanism if you have open and unsettled enquiries.

I'm not new here.

[DealorNoDeal]

From what I read yes, and one of the main hurdles is to differentiate it from that. Least that's what I read on twitter. I think there are pros and cons to the Cartref case but I am not a tax nerd so really only read the high level scuttlebutt.

Do you know who the QC representing LCAG is? I would expect HMRC to put up a big hitter.