Reply to: eek

[Paralytic]

cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.

Are you saying that HMRC disclosed all information?

I'm not saying anything. I'm asking on what basis is your claim that HMRC colluded with the loan firms.

[AtW]

Actually as I understand it the government's inability to do things correctly is part of many legal decisions. At the very least if they are proven incompetent then penalties can't really be levied.

I'm not defending those who used the loan schemes just pointing out it was a scam the government failed to fix 20 years ago.

You go get a QC to approve that statement and then we can laugh even more

[vetran]

What's that got to do with the price of fish or in fact anything at all to do with loan scheme promoters... Just because HMRC is crap at doing X it doesn't mean they have any responsibility nor blame for the fact people did ABC...

Actually as I understand it the government's inability to do things correctly is part of many legal decisions. At the very least if they are proven incompetent then penalties can't really be levied.

I'm not defending those who used the loan schemes just pointing out it was a scam the government failed to fix 20 years ago.

[vetran]

"HMRC colluded with many of the loan firms"

That's a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence?

"the statement HMRC reviewed with queens council approval (or similar) was in a lot of brochures."

Did HMRC claim/confirm this? And did those that signed up for the schemes ask to see the approval?

cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.

Are you saying that HMRC disclosed all information?

[eek]

Loan charge: HMRC's plans to clampdown on loan-scheme promoters slammed by IT contractors

What's that got to do with the price of fish or in fact anything at all to do with loan scheme promoters... Just because HMRC is crap at doing X it doesn't mean they have any responsibility nor blame for the fact people did ABC...

[vetran]

Finally 24th July this year.

Loan charge: HMRC's plans to clampdown on loan-scheme promoters slammed by IT contractors

in the wake of criticism over its past enforcement of the loan-charge policy

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is seeking feedback on a set of proposals designed to clamp down on the promoters of tax-avoidance schemes that have left tens of thousands of IT contractors saddled with life-changing tax bills.

CONTENT CONTINUES BELOW

The tax-collection agency said the proposed legislative changes seek to “strengthen” its existing anti-tax avoidance regimes, and “change the behaviours” of those involved in the promotion and enablement of arrangements that confer a “tax advantage” on participants.
As such, the proposals will enable HMRC to “more effectively” issue stop notices to parties found to be involved in the marketing of tax-avoidance arrangements through its existing Promoters of Tax-Avoidance Scheme (POTAS) rules.
These rules were introduced in 2014 to provide HMRC with a means of addressing the behaviour of promoters it deemed to be at high risk of developing tax avoidance schemes, or encouraging others to participate in them.

The proposals published this week aim to make it easier for HMRC to obtain information about the “enabling of abusive schemes” as soon as they are identified and issue penalties as soon as a tax-avoidance scheme has been defeated at tribunal.

[eek]

"HMRC colluded with many of the loan firms"

That's a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence?

"the statement HMRC reviewed with queens council approval (or similar) was in a lot of brochures."

Did HMRC claim/confirm this? And did those that signed up for the schemes ask to see the approval?

HMRC reviewed doesn't say HMRC approved of it. Reviewed probably means they had a laugh while reading it.

QC approved was the other one and my viewpoint of that has always been the same, he reviewed the scheme while approving his very liquid and enjoyable lunch that the scheme organisers paid for.

[Paralytic]

I suspect sooner or later a judge will notice HMRC colluded with many of the loan firms and permitted them to exist and continue scamming people. Yes you can normally only cheat an honest man but the statement HMRC reviewed with queens council approval (or similar) was in a lot of brochures.

Maybe they will count HMRC partially responsible?

"HMRC colluded with many of the loan firms"

That's a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence?

"the statement HMRC reviewed with queens council approval (or similar) was in a lot of brochures."

Did HMRC claim/confirm this? And did those that signed up for the schemes ask to see the approval?

[Old Greg]

I suspect sooner or later a judge will notice HMRC colluded with many of the loan firms and permitted them to exist and continue scamming people. Yes you can normally only cheat an honest man but the statement HMRC reviewed with queens council approval (or similar) was in a lot of brochures.

Maybe they will count HMRC partially responsible?

Partially responsible for what - the Loan Charge?

[eek]

I suspect sooner or later a judge will notice HMRC colluded with many of the loan firms and permitted them to exist and continue scamming people. Yes you can normally only cheat an honest man but the statement HMRC reviewed with queens council approval (or similar) was in a lot of brochures.

Maybe they will count HMRC partially responsible?

[vetran]

I suspect sooner or later a judge will notice HMRC colluded with many of the loan firms and permitted them to exist and continue scamming people. Yes you can normally only cheat an honest man but the statement HMRC reviewed with queens council approval (or similar) was in a lot of brochures.

Maybe they will count HMRC partially responsible?

[jainnode]

National Service to the Motherland. You came to this country as a draft dodger.

FTFY
he'd have to already be in the armed forces to be a deserter.

[DoctorStrangelove]

National Service to the Motherland. You came to this country as a deserter.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

If I was a septic I'd have hopped it to Canada as fast as possible.

Hey Hey LBJ & all that, man.

[Whorty]

National Service to the Motherland. You came to this country as a deserter.

Idiot

[eek]

I have full sympathy for the financially uneducated who truly "fell" for these schemes, some of whom were told (apparently) that they had to go via certain umbrella/schemes in order to get the "job", but its hard to feel any such sympathy for those who just listened to what they wanted to hear when they signed up for the scheme, and are now doing the same (and worse, attacking the messengers) when being some very pertinent risks are being pointed out to them.

Reading that thread is a very interesting study on human nature, although it does also have a bit of a that guilty rubber-necking feel about it too.

Imagine my realisation on Saturday night of what the actual plan was and how well the banned poster had intentionally been pointing people in completely the wrong direction towards a company who may have said enough to make the loan valid..