Settlement Offer (version 29)

[bubble99]

Hi all,

Received latest settlement calculations a month or so ago. Agreed them via return of their form (had to argue IHT which they continued to roll up during LC review period but they 'corrected' it eventually). Now recieved actual settlement offer for me to sign (by 7/8/2020). The offer and covering letter have set out what they expect me to pay to settle all the tax/interest/IHT - the number is what I was expecting (i.e. the max).

HOWEVER for the first time ever in these kind of communications - the covering letter explains that I can 'Offer to settle for a different amount'. This is the first time I've ever seen this possability even remotely eluded to. Is this just lip service / has anyone who has settled, settled for less than the max? I'm obviously tempted to offer a lower amount. I was thinking minus the IHT amount (WTF is that about anyway - surely a double tax if they want PAYE+int also) and also try to reduce the interest on one of the years where they never sent me an APN so I never had an oppurtunity to stop the int roll up.

All my loans are pre dec 9th 2010 incase it makes a diff to my negotiating position.

Is this some kind of lip service trap? I mean why wouldnt I offer less? (only concern is they reject and then I cant get the settltment for the full amount done by end of September).

Cheers

[Delendog]

Hi all,

Received latest settlement calculations a month or so ago. Agreed them via return of their form (had to argue IHT which they continued to roll up during LC review period but they 'corrected' it eventually). Now recieved actual settlement offer for me to sign (by 7/8/2020). The offer and covering letter have set out what they expect me to pay to settle all the tax/interest/IHT - the number is what I was expecting (i.e. the max).

HOWEVER for the first time ever in these kind of communications - the covering letter explains that I can 'Offer to settle for a different amount'. This is the first time I've ever seen this possability even remotely eluded to. Is this just lip service / has anyone who has settled, settled for less than the max? I'm obviously tempted to offer a lower amount. I was thinking minus the IHT amount (WTF is that about anyway - surely a double tax if they want PAYE+int also) and also try to reduce the interest on one of the years where they never sent me an APN so I never had an oppurtunity to stop the int roll up.

All my loans are pre dec 9th 2010 incase it makes a diff to my negotiating position.

Is this some kind of lip service trap? I mean why wouldnt I offer less? (only concern is they reject and then I cant get the settltment for the full amount done by end of September).

Cheers

They probably want you to offer more!

[bubble99]

it just confuses me (a lot) since all along my understanding from them was 'this is the basis of our settlement offer - take it or get stuffed'... but now they are implying you can make an offer? I just dont get it. If they arejust going to say 'no' to whatever I offer, why give a whiff of it?

[dammit chloe]

it just confuses me (a lot) since all along my understanding from them was 'this is the basis of our settlement offer - take it or get stuffed'... but now they are implying you can make an offer? I just dont get it. If they arejust going to say 'no' to whatever I offer, why give a whiff of it?

Call them and ask what it means.

Or try one of the tax advisors. It is interesting as you say.

If you are in LCAG ask on the forum, I guess the settlement letters have been rolling out steadily.

[DanJackiels]

is this not a case of you being exempt from LC, as loans pre 2010...and them looking to make you settle for Loans that were descoped? ie they kept your years open...why not refuse to settle under the assumption anyone with loans pre 2010 will not settle? and see how things evolve. or if you want rid of it for once and for all, ignore me.

[bubble99]

yeah I mean, I guess I'm so worn down by this whole HMRC narrative that I had just come to accept I was eventually going to have to pay them what they asked for. So I'm just a bit taken back if there is a different approach on the cards. The thing driving this along is obviously that utlimately (if I refuse to settle) it will go to the tribunals etc if we loose at that point they will just hammer us with the true maximum.

is this not a case of you being exempt from LC, as loans pre 2010...and them looking to make you settle for Loans that were descoped? ie they kept your years open...why not refuse to settle under the assumption anyone with loans pre 2010 will not settle? and see how things evolve. or if you want rid of it for once and for all, ignore me.

[DealorNoDeal]

The thing driving this along is obviously that utlimately (if I refuse to settle) it will go to the tribunals etc if we loose at that point they will just hammer us with the true maximum.

The only difference between settling in a few years time versus settling now will be some extra interest. A case being lost at tribunal won't change the amount of tax due.

As "dammit chloe" says, phone the number on the letter and ask them what they meant.

[webberg]

The wording on page 4 of the settlement letter "Offering to settle for a different amount" has been part of the template letter since they were first used last year.

The paragraph goes on to explain that if you do make such an offer there are two consequences.

One is that you will be asked to justify why you are making a different offer.

The other is that HMRC will consider it (yeah right) and if they reject it, the terms of the November 2017 "opportunity" will be withdrawn.

HMRC then claim that the loan charge will become due. That is a matter of dispute.

(Given that the loan charge legislation DOES NOT contain any words that allow HMRC to exempt taxpayers from the charge if they settle via the November 2017 terms or otherwise, quite how powerful a coercive tool this paragraph is remains a moot point).

We know that HMRC also claim that the November 2017 terms exclude fees paid and that if you do not take up the terms, a "new" settlement will have to include such fees. That is a nonsense argument. Trying to tax people on money that they never legally had entitlement to is unlikely to find favour in any Tribunal.

The template materials on settlement are all designed to imply that dire consequences will follow unless you agree not to be a trouble maker and pay up. Some of the statements made are borderline false. Some of the statements made are so biased as to be dishonest.

Do not for a moment think that HMRC is presenting a fair and balanced package of information. They are trying to force settlement in order to prevent taxpayers from accessing their legal rights.

[ric_77]

it just confuses me (a lot) since all along my understanding from them was 'this is the basis of our settlement offer - take it or get stuffed'... but now they are implying you can make an offer? I just dont get it. If they arejust going to say 'no' to whatever I offer, why give a whiff of it?

I too have the same in my latest settlement and wondered exactly what this implied.

My settlement discussion has been ongoing since Feb2018 and for the majority of that period ive been asking for replies from HMRC with nothing in return, now it seems that since the pandemic hit, they have been a regular penpal!

[bubble99]

Thanks @Webberg - interestingly though, the covering letter to the settlement offer I received in March 2019 definately does not contain that wording around 'Offering to Settle for a different amount'... so if it is now common, it must of been a more recent addition to the text? also their wording uses a lot of words like 'we may wihdraw the November 2017 terms'. Its a real source of confusion for me and im sure many others.

The wording on page 4 of the settlement letter "Offering to settle for a different amount" has been part of the template letter since they were first used last year.