HMRC Enquiry letters on Loans from EBT and other schemes

[zaphrus]

Don't know if it's relevant or not, but, I remember a snippet of the Ranger FTT case, where HMRC's counsel was asked about loans, and since they were repayable, would they look to charge them to an individual's estate upon death, to which counsel replied that HMRC did not want to commit to anything at this time. My guess here is that if HMRC are looking at charging IHT against loans from an EBT, they could only do so on death, and I'd agree with previous posters, they'd have to show you were trying to avoid IHT - well, given the money is in your bank account, that'd be an uphill struggle, so I'd be inclined to agree they are targeting trusts comprised of personal assets.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

HMRC granted leave to appeal Rangers caseBBC News - HMRC granted leave to appeal Rangers tax case decision

[MrO666]

I think people would want to settle just to put this whole sorry debacle behind them.

HMRC have already won really, in that they have stopped more or less all schemes. Anybody still involved in one of these schemes really must be completely stupid. When we were using them years ago, there was an element of 'they won't catch us' about it (come on be honest), but there isn't that anymore. You know it's more or less a certainty that if you use a scheme today, then they WILL be gunning for you.

[horrada]

I think people would want to settle just to put this whole sorry debacle behind them.

HMRC have already won really, in that they have stopped more or less all schemes. Anybody still involved in one of these schemes really must be completely stupid. When we were using them years ago, there was an element of 'they won't catch us' about it (come on be honest), but there isn't that anymore. You know it's more or less a certainty that if you use a scheme today, then they WILL be gunning for you.

Catch us for what? We already gave them the information.
Don't have issues stopping the schemes, but have issues being worse off than if via Limited Company, a lot worse off due to HMRC incompetence.

[malvolio]

Catch us for what? We already gave them the information.
Don't have issues stopping the schemes, but have issues being worse off than if via Limited Company, a lot worse off due to HMRC incompetence.

Don't see why, given the Limited company is the most efficient/least risk way of turning contract income into personal and you weren't using one...

[Boobetty]

I think that this was for trust schemes that were set up to specifically avoid IHT rather than loan schemes that were set up to indefinitely defer tax - happy to be corrected though - do you have a link

See details here

[IngloriousContractor]

Don't see why, given the Limited company is the most efficient/least risk way of turning contract income into personal and you weren't using one...

These kind of smug responses and moral stand doesn't help unfortunately.

Why couldn't HMRC nip DOTAS schemes in the bud as soon as they are registered by scheme providers? If they approve of the schemes by providing a SRN they have no f*ing right to apply rules retrospectively; all this makes it look like a scam. There are real people with real consequences to their lives. I for one after several financial misadventures had saved enough money to put a deposit down for a home when I got this letter from HMRC.

Unfortunately this conservative government has done no good to us in terms of retrospectively applying tax, house prices, NHS, Euro and many more things! Top civil servants are most concerned about daily mail or what goes out in the news about their department. Its very positive news to put out about how they are tackling tax avoidance!

[vern19]

These kind of smug responses and moral stand doesn't help unfortunately.

He's not here to be helpful. Just ignore

[malvolio]

He's not here to be helpful. Just ignore

He is, you know. If you don't understand what you are fighting against, you aren't ever going to win. Utterly pointless railing against the providers with their guarantees and legal opinion, whether or not EBTs are legal (hint; they mostly are) and everything else. Once you go past 80% retention, especially when the provider is taking a chunk out, you're clearly breaking some kind of rule when the lowest rate of tax for personal income is 20% after the first £10k.

"Having issues" with taking more than the optimum Limited Company solution is just pointless.

[Rob79]

These kind of smug responses and moral stand doesn't help unfortunately.

Why couldn't HMRC nip DOTAS schemes in the bud as soon as they are registered by scheme providers? If they approve of the schemes by providing a SRN they have no f*ing right to apply rules retrospectively; all this makes it look like a scam. There are real people with real consequences to their lives. I for one after several financial misadventures had saved enough money to put a deposit down for a home when I got this letter from HMRC.

Unfortunately this conservative government has done no good to us in terms of retrospectively applying tax, house prices, NHS, Euro and many more things! Top civil servants are most concerned about daily mail or what goes out in the news about their department. Its very positive news to put out about how they are tackling tax avoidance!

A big warning.

HMRC issuing an SRN in respect of a scheme is ABSOLUTELY DEFINITELY NOT an "approval".

HMRC does NOT EVER approve schemes that save/defer/delay tax.

The only power HMRC has to approve or otherwise is in relation to certain very limited circumstances involving reorganization of corporate groups, going offshore etc.

I have no views on your politics but if somebody says that they are HMRC compliant or HMRC approved, they're telling porkies.