Loan charge review - Government response is here

[NeedTheSunshine]

Even if it was signed after March 2016, HMRC won't undo it because it was an open year.

Only closed years, which were settled after March 2016, will be refunded.

So for open years pre 2010 I'm expecting a settlement "opportunity" - CLSO3. I'm presuming that means they will be threatening litigation if you don't settle. Does anyone have any idea what their argument might be? Could those users argue stale enquiries?

I have already settled my open years so am curious.

[webberg]

So for open years pre 2010 I'm expecting a settlement "opportunity" - CLSO3. I'm presuming that means they will be threatening litigation if you don't settle. Does anyone have any idea what their argument might be? Could those users argue stale enquiries?

I have already settled my open years so am curious.

Big Group has a very clear idea as to the argument and is moving ahead as we speak.

Staleness in enquiry is really hard. The law essentially protects enquiries from going stale because the taxpayer (you) have the power to force a conclusion to the enquiry by going to Tribunal.

[NeedTheSunshine]

Big Group has a very clear idea as to the argument and is moving ahead as we speak.

Staleness in enquiry is really hard. The law essentially protects enquiries from going stale because the taxpayer (you) have the power to force a conclusion to the enquiry by going to Tribunal.

Is it different to the argument they threatened to litigate with in CLSO1? I don't expect you to tell me what the details are if they are different. Just curious. The enquiry and loan charge have been a big part of my life for the last few years. Now I'm free of it I still can't help following it out of interest.

[webberg]

Is it different to the argument they threatened to litigate with in CLSO1? I don't expect you to tell me what the details are if they are different. Just curious. The enquiry and loan charge have been a big part of my life for the last few years. Now I'm free of it I still can't help following it out of interest.

You've lost me.

Why would we litigate CLSO 1 which was a settlement process?

What is there to litigate?

[NeedTheSunshine]

You've lost me.

Why would we litigate CLSO 1 which was a settlement process?

What is there to litigate?

HMRC used Transfer of Assets Abroad/Boyle as an "encouragement" for CLSO1 people to settle. The "opportunity" letter mentioned it. So either settle or we will go ahead to tribunal using this as our argument. I didn't want to go to tribunal as it was cheaper for me to settle and I wanted to put it all behind me. Plus my promoter wanted £000s to represent me and I thought that he would keep coming back for more.

Or course I don't expect you to litigate CLSO1. That's well and truly in the past. Done and dusted and I accept that I will not get my money back. So I was wondering if they've moved on from Transfer of Assets Abroad argument. I presume so. But they do need something to encourage/scare people into settling via whatever CLSO3 is (which will also be a settlement process) for the pre 2010 years. Otherwise nobody would settle.

[webberg]

I see (I think).

Boyle is limited to its own facts. It has hardly been raised again by HMRC as it would be shot down.

ToAA came in for a complete battering in Hoey. The judge thought that the argument was invalid but decided that even if it were valid the "value" was NIL.

To the surprise of nobody at all HMRC consider that decision "wrong" and despite losing it again shortly after think that the point will "win" in the end. They are deluded.

So we have our arguments and we march on.

[DealorNoDeal]

To the surprise of nobody at all HMRC consider that decision "wrong" and despite losing it again shortly after think that the point will "win" in the end. They are deluded.

They can afford to be. As far as I can tell, there's little or no cap on what they can splurge on litigation.

That's the problem. They'll take you all the way to the Supreme Court, with a bollocks argument, if the courts allow them to keep appealing.

They'll also use no end of stalling tactics to string out proceedings, costing you more time & money.

Their greatest weapon is that time and money matters to YOU.

[lowpaidworker]

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.

[NeedTheSunshine]

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.

LCAG haven't shared the argument for obvious reasons. They will communicate the outcome and next steps to those members who have contributed to and are part of the JR. You can be a member of LCAG only, a participant in their JR only or both.

[NeedTheSunshine]

They can afford to be. As far as I can tell, there's little or no cap on what they can splurge on litigation.

That's the problem. They'll take you all the way to the Supreme Court, with a bollocks argument, if the courts allow them to keep appealing.

They'll also use no end of stalling tactics to string out proceedings, costing you more time & money.

Their greatest weapon is that time and money matters to YOU.

Agree with this.