Track the Finance Bill 2020-21 here

[gav 24]

Jesse Norman has to go

My letter to MIND this morning:

To : paulfarmer@mind.org.uk

Dear Sir,

I, like many millions of others respect the important and crucial work that MIND does across the UK. Assuming that MIND was based upon the premise that ordinary vulnerable people should be helped with mental challenges it has come as a huge shock to discover that one of you patrons is Jesse Norman MP.

I can only assume that you are unaware of Jesse Normans hateful attitude to the many thousands of victims of the loan scandal throughout the UK. I clearly recognise that Mr Norman has a job to do, however the additional and unnecessary distress that he has caused to many people with his dismissive attitudes and comments in regard to suicide and the mental stress the loan charge has caused is unacceptable.

The loan charge has destroyed my life, the stress put upon myself and my children has been incalculable. Jesse Norman must not be allowed to continue as a patron of MIND.

Regards,

***********

Just emailed as well:


Dear Sir,

I have enormous respect for the work that MIND does in supporting people through challenging mental issues.

I am a victim of the Loan Charge scandal and was horrified to discover that Jesse Norman is a patron of MIND. Whilst clearly, as an MP, Mr Norman is active in debating the scandal and remains a proponent of the charge his vilification of the victims and outright dismissal of the suicides that it has caused is nothing short of abhorrent.

The Loan Charge has caused me incalculable stress and seriously affected my mental health along with many thousands of others. To listen to the dismissive, vindictive rhetoric only adds to the stress that the victims are under and serves to further reinforce the thought that the entire state is against us.

I would ask you to look at Mr Norman’s performance on a matter that is destroying lives throughout the country and consider whether he is a fit patron for MIND. I for one do not think this is the case.

Kind Regards

[DanJackiels]

From reading a bit on the amendments being discussed next week, it looks like NC31 is the big one. NC31 removes the Loan Charge except for people who didn’t report loans as income and knew they were acting incorrectly at the time.

It seems a bit woolly to me, in my case I didn’t do a tax return for 15/16. It was standard paye return, as I was in theory an employee of the umbrella(IQ). I was asked to fill out a self assessment a year later where i added the loans in P11D section. Was i acting incorrectly - id say no! does anybody volunteer for self assessment unless HMRC ask ?

[Iter]

Track the Finance Bill 2020-21 here

From reading a bit on the amendments being discussed next week, it looks like NC31 is the big one. NC31 removes the Loan Charge except for people who didn’t report loans as income and knew they were acting incorrectly at the time.

It seems a bit woolly to me, in my case I didn’t do a tax return for 15/16. It was standard paye return, as I was in theory an employee of the umbrella(IQ). I was asked to fill out a self assessment a year later where i added the loans in P11D section. Was i acting incorrectly - id say no! does anybody volunteer for self assessment unless HMRC ask ?

Similar to the umbrella I was with 11-14, as an ‘employee’ paid the correct PAYE at the time. Was never asked by HMRC to do a return and was also told it wasn’t required. Never had a DOTAS/Loans are not taxable etc.... certainly not anything in the evasion category.

If this does go through i can imagine it will be open to HMRCs ‘opinion’

[DavidD]

I think LCAG probably acknowledge that this is one (albeit critical) battle in a war.

I am personally concerned that the LC is scrapped and very shortly after I receive more APNs which, more or less, put me in the same financial woes I have with the LC....

I cant help but feel that there needs to be a sensible resolution where HMRC can 'climb down' without bankrupting so many people.

[DealorNoDeal]

I am personally concerned that the LC is scrapped and very shortly after I receive more APNs which, more or less, put me in the same financial woes I have with the LC....

HMRC can only* issue APNs if the scheme was (a) registered under DOTAS and (b) they've already opened an enquiry or raised an assessment (discovery) for the years in question.

* NB. they can also issue APNs off the back of an FN but they can only do this if they've defeated your scheme, or a very similar one, in court

[DavidD]

Yes, unfortunately for me, all my years are open and my last 18months have a DOTAS number.....

[DealorNoDeal]

Yes, unfortunately for me, all my years are open and my last 18months have a DOTAS number.....

Bugger.

[DealorNoDeal]

Yes, unfortunately for me, all my years are open and my last 18months have a DOTAS number.....

Out of interest, which years was that? I don't think many schemes registered after about 2010. Very few, if any, registered after 2014 when APNs came in (for obvious reasons!).

[DavidD]

Initially K2 (Cirus Lighthouse) 2012/13 which was not DOTAS registered and subsequently it morphed into Hyrax in 2014 which was DOTAS.

I cant recall the exact reasons but I remember the scheme operators made a 'strategic' decision to register Hyrax as DOTAS - I think there was some repercussions for them personally if they did not (something like that).

[DealorNoDeal]

I cant recall the exact reasons but I remember the scheme operators made a 'strategic' decision to register Hyrax as DOTAS - I think there was some repercussions for them personally if they did not (something like that).

Well, it can't have been for the benefit of clients because, by early 2014, they would have known that APNs were coming.