Reply to: Finance Bill for Non Residents

[Harrai]

Hi All,

How are the non-residents progressing with this? Is there a different process or benefits to being a nonresident of UK?

[Harrai]

Hi All,

Is there any update on how the loan charge affects non residents?

Is the Part 7a charge relevant to us?

[geepaulem]

LC19

oi oi oi

If you have not paid either of the CSLO's or the APN and if it comes to it have an appetite to fight HMRC on the LC19 on Australian turf through Australian courts can you PM me please.
Just wanting to get together possible numbers and interest at this stage.
I have no idea what the outcome of LC19 will cause us but I guess we may need to be ready in case it does come our way.

At this stage just after a name and email address so I can get a list together.

Hi woftam. Did you have any luck with this? I'm afraid I don't know how to PM on this site so if you can PM me i would be interested to hear from you.

[rta]

oi oi oi

If you have not paid either of the CSLO's or the APN and if it comes to it have an appetite to fight HMRC on the LC19 on Australian turf through Australian courts can you PM me please.
Just wanting to get together possible numbers and interest at this stage.
I have no idea what the outcome of LC19 will cause us but I guess we may need to be ready in case it does come our way.

At this stage just after a name and email address so I can get a list together.

Hi...you can put me down too ....

[Bozo]

First on the agenda is what can they do, once this is established then we work on what can we do.
But in the meantime we can at least be a right pain in the posterior for them until that point.😊

I am also interested to find out more and can pm you my details

[woftam]

If you are still looking for people count me in I can pm you my detail

Although not sure if there is anything we can do down here

First on the agenda is what can they do, once this is established then we work on what can we do.
But in the meantime we can at least be a right pain in the posterior for them until that point.😊

[Endofdays]

oi oi oi

If you have not paid either of the CSLO's or the APN and if it comes to it have an appetite to fight HMRC on the LC19 on Australian turf through Australian courts can you PM me please.
Just wanting to get together possible numbers and interest at this stage.
I have no idea what the outcome of LC19 will cause us but I guess we may need to be ready in case it does come our way.

At this stage just after a name and email address so I can get a list together.

If you are still looking for people count me in I can pm you my detail

Although not sure if there is anything we can do down here

[Loan Ranger]

What powers do the HMRC have to collect the EBT and LC19 obligations if I am not a UK citizen or resident and live in Ireland? I have no intentions of living and working in the UK in the future but I would still like to be able visit.

HMRC can ask the Irish tax authorities to enforce it under the EU MARD (Mutual Assistance in the Recovery of Debt).

[Jim99]

What powers do the HMRC have to collect the EBT and LC19 obligations if I am not a UK citizen or resident and live in Ireland? I have no intentions of living and working in the UK in the future but I would still like to be able visit.

[Loan Ranger]

Most contractor loan structures were like this.

Contractor -> IoM Employer -> UK Intermediary -> Employment Agency -> Client

The schemes had to insert a UK intermediary because most agencies wouldn't deal with offshore companies.

In this scenario, I think the UK intermediary would be on the hook for PAYE, for two reasons:

1) it was last in the chain before the money went offshore
2) it was probably the only UK entity in the chain that was aware that the workers, it was supplying, were employees of an IoM company (it wouldn't be fair to saddle the Employment Agency or Client when they knew nothing about this)

As you say, in most cases HMRC are out of time to raise a Reg 80, and in any event it wouldn't be that easy transferring the liability to the employees. The transfer rules are more aimed at employees who have a hand in the running of the company eg. its directors.

[GoneSurfing]

Yes, that would apply to all UK contractors employed by IoM firms.

It's a bit remiss that Boyle's legal team didn't put forward this argument. They only made the case that the IoM employer had a UK presence, which the tribunal didn't accept. The Boyle judgment is questionable on several fronts, and it's a pity it wasn't appealed.

Sorry - I must have misinterpreted your earlier post regarding the application of Rangers to any possible appeals before the FTT as it read it as Rangers only applies to UK employers and Boyle was an example of why it wouldn't be a good argument for those with off shore employers.

If I understand it correctly, in the case off an offshore employer the end client is the relevant onshore person who becomes liable in the first instance (not the contractor) and HMRC have to raise a Reg 80 against them before being able to raise a Reg 81 to transfer the liability to the contractor.

Given that they are now out of time for raising a Reg 80 for most of the years in question, they can't raise the subsequent Reg 81. HMRC would appear to be unable to transfer liability to contractors until LC19.

[Loan Ranger]

https://www.taxadvisermagazine.com/a...��-whod-be-ref

ITEPA 2003, s689 lays out rules for collecting PAYE on the earnings of employees of non-UK employers (outside the PAYE jurisdiction) whose services are provided to a relevant onshore person. The PAYE obligation falls on the relevant onshore person if the offshore employer fails to account for it. HMRC should therefore, in theory, be pursuing all the UK clients for the arrears that are now known to have been due. But, of course, until it discovered new tactics at half-time in the RFC case, HMRC did not know that this is what it should have been doing, and it is now out of time to issue Reg 80 determinations for all the relevant years.**

Yes, that would apply to all UK contractors employed by IoM firms.

It's a bit remiss that Boyle's legal team didn't put forward this argument. They only made the case that the IoM employer had a UK presence, which the tribunal didn't accept. The Boyle judgment is questionable on several fronts, and it's a pity it wasn't appealed.

[GoneSurfing]

If there was a UK employer then Rangers may apply.

However, a lot of schemes had an Isle of Man employer, and there is no requirement for them to operate PAYE.

Boyle was in a loan scheme and was employed by an IoM company. "Employer liable" was one of the arguments his legal team made but the tribunal rejected it.
http://financeandtax.decisions.tribu...06/TC03103.pdf

https://www.taxadvisermagazine.com/a...��-whod-be-ref

ITEPA 2003, s689 lays out rules for collecting PAYE on the earnings of employees of non-UK employers (outside the PAYE jurisdiction) whose services are provided to a relevant onshore person. The PAYE obligation falls on the relevant onshore person if the offshore employer fails to account for it. HMRC should therefore, in theory, be pursuing all the UK clients for the arrears that are now known to have been due. But, of course, until it discovered new tactics at half-time in the RFC case, HMRC did not know that this is what it should have been doing, and it is now out of time to issue Reg 80 determinations for all the relevant years.**

[GoneSurfing]

I agree with you it’s bonkers. However, it won’t be packaged as interest on the LC. It will be classed as the amount due on the underlying enquiry (if its successful in the eyes of HMRC). As i say, it’s the same thing but packaged in a different way to avoid admitting retrospective taxation.
I’ve always said, settlement removes all concerns. LC also does for the large amount of cases where LC amount > settlement as then the enquiry will fall away as nothing left to take, which is the situation I was referring to earlier.
However, where LC isn’t greater than amount protected by the enquiry they have a plan to charge more.
It’s a shambles and appalling but unfortunately HMRC will admit this is the plan. I’ve literally just called them again to confirm.
All that being said, I don’t think they will kill themselves to chase if the amount is relatively minimal and they have got the large % in their bank. That however is just my personal opinion based on conversations I’ve had.
I apologise that my earlier message didn’t explain what I meant v well, but I am totally confident that LC is end of the matter in most cases I’ve seen but that’s as there’s nothing left for them to take in my view. If however there is, they will potentially go for it. So:
Settlement = final
LC where no open enquiries = final
Lc with open enquiries = not final (in some cases)

Thanks Phil... good to have it confirmed that closing enquiries does serve some purpose beyond a moral victory for a small portion of those affected.

And thanks for your participation here in general, your posts are appreciated even if the ramifications contained in them isn't always!

[phil@pmtc]

Cheers Phil can you PM me the details 😊

Just spoke to her and she has left the firm to join the Australian tax authorities!