Track the Finance Bill 2020-21 here

[DanJackiels]

I have a bad feeling about NC31. Saw some notes on twitter around counter arguments to the amendments that are doing the rounds. And even examples of an MP, who is a member of the Loan Charge APPG, telling his constituent that he couldn’t support the amendment tomorrow. Speechless.

[dammit chloe]

I have a bad feeling about NC31. Saw some notes on twitter around counter arguments to the amendments that are doing the rounds. And even examples of an MP, who is a member of the Loan Charge APPG, telling his constituent that he couldn’t support the amendment tomorrow. Speechless.

It won't be easy. A lot of the younger MPs will be heavily pressured in the unique way the Treasury do. However, I don't know how the voting works and whether many will abstain rather than actually vote against.

I think it's strange that this issue is one that the Govt are so keen to stand on given all the other crap going on.

[DealorNoDeal]

I think it's strange that this issue is one that the Govt are so keen to stand on given all the other crap going on.

I suspect it's a case of "we're implementing the recommendations of the Morse report, and making wide ranging concessions, and that's your lot".

Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, not many Government MPs will vote against (or abstain) in a Finance Bill.

PS. although I suspect the Morse recommendations were rigged in the sense that they merely reflected what the Govt had already decided they were willing to do.

[interestedparty]

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 ?

So, if we reported the annual LLP profit shares, but not the loans, then we would not benefit from NC31? The overdrawn capital balances (loans) were disclosed when HMRC made inquiries, but as they were loans, and not income they were not included in the original SA as income.

[interestedparty]

So, if we reported the annual LLP profit shares, but not the loans, then we would not benefit from NC31? The overdrawn capital balances (loans) were disclosed when HMRC made inquiries, but as they were loans, and not income they were not included in the original SA as income.

Although, the amendment does specify that "P knew that the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for as income in the relevant year": doesn't that place a large burden of proof on HMRC - the participant would probably have made their disclosure based on advice from the scheme, or from their own accountants?

[DealorNoDeal]

Although, the amendment does specify that "P knew that the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for as income in the relevant year": doesn't that place a large burden of proof on HMRC - the participant would probably have made their disclosure based on advice from the scheme, or from their own accountants?

If P knew that the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for as income in the relevant year, and didn't declare it on their SA, then wouldn't that be evasion anyway?

[webberg]

Although, the amendment does specify that "P knew that the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for as income in the relevant year": doesn't that place a large burden of proof on HMRC - the participant would probably have made their disclosure based on advice from the scheme, or from their own accountants?

I think you are placing a heavy burden on legislation that has not passed into law and trying to second guess it at this stage is an impossible task.

In general however, we have a self assessment tax system. That means that claims for relief etc are the burden of the taxpayer.

That is the TAXPAYER.

Not the agent/accountant/scheme promoter.

You cannot rely upon the advice of another in submitting YOUR tax return.

[interestedparty]

If P knew that the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for as income in the relevant year, and didn't declare it on their SA, then wouldn't that be evasion anyway?

Not if they could demonstrate that they were acting on advice, in the form of a communication from the scheme advisors, or from their accountant?

[webberg]

Not if they could demonstrate that they were acting on advice, in the form of a communication from the scheme advisors, or from their accountant?

Incorrect in my opinion.

If you knew or suspected that the adviser/scheme promoter and or independent agent were telling you to do something that was tax avoidance then any defence you might have of relying on that agent's advice is devalued.

The defence of relying upon an agent has been specifically removed from the list of "excuses" from I think 2018.

Evasion is a different kettle of fish. Evasion implies some form of deliberate concealment of information or value. No self respecting professional agent would be advising you to conceal anything. If you claimed this in Court a Judge would want it proven beyond any doubt that the agent was acting as you suggest because the next step would be criminal charges against the agent.

The scheme promoter may or may not be your tax agent.

If they are just selling you a product they owe you no duty of care.

If they are acting as your agent, then you have rights and if something they've told you is incorrect you can look to professional negligence.

If they are acting as both scheme promoter and agent, you will find in many cases that you have bought a product from one company but are the client of another and there is no corss over.

[DealorNoDeal]

This is all hypothetical anyway, because NC31 has to get passed first. And that's a huge hurdle to cross.