• 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!

Ok - now I'm confused

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ok - now I'm confused

    Last September I received a brown envelope from HMRC that fundamentally says that I don't have to pay the loan charge as the loans were made before 9th December 2010, and as such, I do not need to settle my disguised renumeration scheme use either. Yayyyy I thought.

    However, this morning I received another brown envelope saying I still need to pay the tax on the amount I received from my loans paid before 9th December 2010.

    So, have I misunderstood the first letter? Is this HMRC not knowing their behinds from their elbows? Or HMRC just on a phishing exercise?

    Hopefully I've uploaded both letters.

    You thoughts would be most appreciated.
    Attached Files

    #2
    The loan charge doesn't count for these loans

    But that does not mean HMRC doesn't want the tax "owed" on those loans and they will be chasing up payment until all the court cases are concluded and HMRC either win the right to claim the money or the court cases give you get out clauses
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by eek View Post
      The loan charge doesn't count for these loans

      But that does not mean HMRC doesn't want the tax "owed" on those loans and they will be chasing up payment until all the court cases are concluded and HMRC either win the right to claim the money or the court cases give you get out clauses
      So, does he/she pay HMRC or not? Presumably, there's a clock running with penalties accruing until the court cases are settled one way or another?
      Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
      Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by regron
        Paying the Loan Charge was never a choice you could take to close matters. The underlying tax dispute is still in play. As an example:

        You pay loan charge of 50k
        The scheme you used still has to go through the courts
        HMRC win, recalculate your liability and say you owe 60k, you have to cough up the additional 10k and the matter is closed.
        HMRC lose, you don't get the 50K back, but you owe nothing more and the matter is closed.

        Usual HMRC pattern of we win, or we win !!!
        All the OP's loans are prior to December 2010 so why on earth are you talking about the Loan Charge - it's completely irrelevant here.
        merely at clientco for the entertainment

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by eek View Post

          All the OP's loans are prior to December 2010 so why on earth are you talking about the Loan Charge - it's completely irrelevant here.
          Fair point, I hadn't read the details properly. I will delete the posts. However, the argument of mis-information won't stand, I stand by that.
          STRENGTH - "A river cuts through rock not because of its power, but its persistence"

          Comment


            #6
            Given the first letter is saying that the it was voluntary restitution does this not mean that those years are closed. Pre-2010 and closed means end of story AFAIK. If they were open there are still questions as per Hoey case.

            It also clearly says we will not contact you further about your disguised remuneration scheme use. Not about loan charge, about scheme use. What is going on here?

            I do wonder whether the letters relate to the same scheme usage.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by dammit chloe View Post
              I do wonder whether the letters relate to the same scheme usage.
              Yup - I was only in one scheme Edge / Greenbay, in the early 2000's. Emigrated to NZ in 2005 so everything is definitly pre-2010

              Comment


                #8
                Possible that you have an open year somewhere?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by InNZ View Post

                  Yup - I was only in one scheme Edge / Greenbay, in the early 2000's. Emigrated to NZ in 2005 so everything is definitly pre-2010
                  If you have an open year then that may be an issue.
                  If not I would keep the first letter then as proof that they have confirmed with you that the matter has been closed in all respects not just Loan Charge as per the letter. I received the same first letter but have had no follow up.

                  When it is that old and you are in NZ I wouldn't give it any more thought, you have evidence that the matter is closed.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by dammit chloe View Post

                    When it is that old and you are in NZ I wouldn't give it any more thought, you have evidence that the matter is closed.
                    Thanks - appreciated all the responses.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X