Ok - now I'm confused

[InNZ]

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.

[eek]

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

[Fred Bloggs]

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?

[eek]

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.

[regron]

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.

[dammit chloe]

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.

[InNZ]

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

[ChimpMaster]

Possible that you have an open year somewhere?

[dammit chloe]

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.

[InNZ]

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.