- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Loan charge review - Government response is here
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
I have 5 loans pre-2010, all with enquiries open. I have had an APN on one of them. I was thinking about carrying on with litigation but am worried that HMRC will simply APN for the rest. Am I right in thinking that HMRC could just say well we cannot get you with the Loan charge so we will just get round that with APNs and think about litigation in our own good time???Comment
-
Originally posted by ChimpMaster View PostNot a surprise if the tax years are Protected, indeed.
If you have Unprotected years pre-2010 then HMRC would have to prove Fraud to be able to go back that far.
Have I understood this correctly?
The news that HMRC will resource a team to target pre 2010 schemes (something that they had many years ago and was called the "legacy" team before they archived a lot of information thinking that the loan charge would be a panacea) is worrying.
It should be simple.
Did HMRC issue a tax return - yes/no?
If yes, was a section 9A enquiry opened within 12 months of that return being filed - yes/no?
If yes, then the year is open/protected and enquiries can continue (actually more like restarted after being allowed to go dormant).
If no tax return or no enquiry, did HMRC issue a discovery assessment - yes/no?
If yes, then it has to be settled in some manner.
If no, can HMRC issue a discovery assessment now - yes/no?
Well even the extended discovery period of 6 years will be too late for most.
Has the taxpayer committed a fraud (20 years retrospection) - I would say that is very difficult.
For me that leaves two possible angles for this HMRC team.
First, can they persuade Treasury/Government to make retrospective law?
Given the implied and sometimes explicit criticism of HMRC in the design and implementation of the loan charge in the report, it would be a brave MP who backed such a move.
Second, (and more worrying for me), is whether the 12 year enquiry period for matters involving non UK elements can be applied.
If so, (and many schemes have offshore elements), then years from 2007/08 are technically still in time.
We're also perhaps looking at the "requirement to correct" rules and a few more obscure parts of the TMA 1970.
Also, no mention in the recommendations as to the IHT position which is disappointing.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by Forsythia View PostI have 5 loans pre-2010, all with enquiries open. I have had an APN on one of them. I was thinking about carrying on with litigation but am worried that HMRC will simply APN for the rest. Am I right in thinking that HMRC could just say well we cannot get you with the Loan charge so we will just get round that with APNs and think about litigation in our own good time???
APN is not settlement of open/protected years any more than the loan charge is.
An APN is just a guess at what might be owed if HMRC can win their argument. If they lose that argument, then the APN falls and you get the money back.
How will you know if they fail in their argument? You go through the litigation process.
APN also comes with conditions. If you have years pre 2010 with no APN then I'm guessing that these conditions are failed and that you will never see an APN for them. I'm guessing but perhaps your scheme did not have a DOTAS disclosure?
Also litigation timetables are NOT determined by HMRC. The process at Tribunal is designed so that you can go for hearings when YOU are ready and you do not (and should not) be dancing to HMRC tunes and time signatures on this.
Now is the time to be pressing even harder for litigation because HMRC has been shown to have been at best incompetent and at worst heartless and acting outside of rules designed to protect taxpayers. What do we think a Tribunal Judge might think of that?Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by Iliketax View PostUnless you've already gone and got them released...
If you've done that you might need to do some more lobbying.Last edited by starstruck; 20 December 2019, 18:07.Comment
-
Originally posted by starstruck View PostThey depreciated to close to zero and the remaining balance of a few hundred pounds as waived (actually it was not sterling that was waived but it was of that magnitude) in 2005-ish. For most loans the trust was also closed pre-2010 also. Where does that leave me? The loan charge was the only legislation that ignored currency devaluation as far as I’m aware - it magicked back my loans.
In most cases I think it would be difficult to argue that the depreciation was anything more than a slight of hand vanishing trick that was designed to deceive the eye but which was not "real".
That part of the loan charge that denies the effect of depreciation is not, so far as I can see, removed by the report or the Government.
So, I would argue that you should assume that the loan charge remains a matter to be dealt with for you because the falsehood is in the "depreciation".Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostI will suggest that based on my investigations of many schemes in which "depreciation" features, the alleged reduction in the loan value created by the use of non sterling currency is itself a form of "magic".
In most cases I think it would be difficult to argue that the depreciation was anything more than a slight of hand vanishing trick that was designed to deceive the eye but which was not "real".
That part of the loan charge that denies the effect of depreciation is not, so far as I can see, removed by the report or the Government.
So, I would argue that you should assume that the loan charge remains a matter to be dealt with for you because the falsehood is in the "depreciation".
But my loans are all closed years pre-2010 - why are you saying the loan charge still applies? You should be posting this on the BG forum because on there people are thinking their closed years pre 2010 are now out of scope.Last edited by starstruck; 20 December 2019, 18:46.Comment
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostI will suggest that based on my investigations of many schemes in which "depreciation" features, the alleged reduction in the loan value created by the use of non sterling currency is itself a form of "magic".
In most cases I think it would be difficult to argue that the depreciation was anything more than a slight of hand vanishing trick that was designed to deceive the eye but which was not "real".
That part of the loan charge that denies the effect of depreciation is not, so far as I can see, removed by the report or the Government.
So, I would argue that you should assume that the loan charge remains a matter to be dealt with for you because the falsehood is in the "depreciation".
I suspect I was in the same or very similar scheme as the OP. If there was deception then it was by the accountants and the QC, I have no knowledge of anything other than what I was told was happening. PAYE transfer rules also have to apply and they, IMO, couldn't be said to have met and is one of your key tactics I am led to believe.Last edited by dammit chloe; 20 December 2019, 19:08.Comment
-
AML SA Returns
AML did all my SA returns between 2012 - 2016. Does anyone know if the way these returns were filled in by AML made it clear that an avoidance scheme was being used?
What classify's the avoidance scheme being fully disclosed on a return? putting the name of the scheme provider?Comment
-
Originally posted by starstruck View PostBut my loans are all closed years pre-2010 - why are you saying the loan charge still applies?Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment