Reply to: Want to know how to fight this?

[Loan Ranger]

I am sure any challenges will take years.

Fighting something like this means, to some extent, putting your life on hold.

It can become an obsession which, if you're not careful, can affect other areas of your life and your health.

It's an unfair fight too because your opponent has unlimited resources and, at the end of the day, it's just a job to them. They're not going to lose any sleep over it.

And this is time in your life that you can never get back.

[me206et]

I know.

Maybe it's for the best though. Something like this may give false hope.

It's probably best if people come to terms with the fact that, one way or another (settlement or LC), they're going to have to pay.

I would agree.
If you settle, you pay.
If you wait for LC then if you do not pay then there are fines and interest if you do not pay.
I am sure any challenges will take years. So the cost just keeps ramping up.
I believe the only people who can afford that option are the ones who will be made bankrupt anyway.
So if the nerves can take it good luck to those that have to fight.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, I think I will just have to settle.

[Loan Ranger]

I don’t think this would be viable for numerous reasons but I say that’s a shame as the scale of the idea is what’s required.

I know.

Maybe it's for the best though. Something like this may give false hope.

It's probably best if people come to terms with the fact that, one way or another (settlement or LC), they're going to have to pay.

[me206et]

I don’t think this would be viable for numerous reasons but I say that’s a shame as the scale of the idea is what’s required.
If by some turn of events you find yourself in a position where you need and can afford the best available Tax QC I strongly recommend Julian Ghosh (I have no link to him whatsoever)

Julian Ghosh, name rings a bell. He was the QC that said one of the "failed" schemes I was in was all above board and legal. In QC speech.

[phil@pmtc]

I don’t think this would be viable for numerous reasons but I say that’s a shame as the scale of the idea is what’s required.
If by some turn of events you find yourself in a position where you need and can afford the best available Tax QC I strongly recommend Julian Ghosh (I have no link to him whatsoever)

[PokemonStay]

There are slam dunk cases in most aspects of the law. The major exception is HMRC.

[Loan Ranger]

How about if we win, the lawyers gets X% of the amount HMRC demands? Kinda no win no fee, the more people we and the lawyers can recruit as a class action suit the more fees they will generate if they win.

There's virtually no chance of finding any firms or QCs who would do it on that basis.

It would have to be a virtual slam dunk for no win no fee, and it's far from that.

[philinlondon]

How about if we win, the lawyers gets X% of the amount HMRC demands? Kinda no win no fee, the more people we and the lawyers can recruit as a class action suit the more fees they will generate if they win.

[Loan Ranger]

Full page advert in the Sunday Times. That would spread the word.

Used a Contractor loan scheme in the past 18 years?

The Government has introduced legislation to levy a one-off tax charge on all so-called "disguised remuneration" loans in this tax year.

The total value of the outstanding loans will be treated as though you earned that amount of money this year in addition to any other earnings you have. Yes, you read that right!

Example

You received a total of £200,000 loans in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Your salary this year is £50,000.
You will be taxed as though you earned £250,000 this year!

Interested in joining with other people affected by this to raise a fighting fund to challenge the loan charge?

Contact...

[QCApproved]

Midnight Oil

My thoughts on the above G:
I think less have probably settled. I would say a large number of the constituencies above are now in Aus, NZ and SA absolutely no doubt a large percentage of the loans outstanding balance resides there. Large numbers of that demographic used these schemes from 02-12 for 1-3 years.

From my own network in that region I'm aware of £3.2m of loans and that is 10 people including one couple with over 600k in loans

Most of them are not settling or actively engaging until the position on the enforceability of the loan charge in their jurisdictions is clearer. At the time many were more comfortable using them because of that hurdle.
Unfortunately they won't be on CUK regularly if at all.

[webberg]

You also need to get real on the numbers.

Let's start with 100,000.

We think perhaps 10% are being advised. Of those, perhaps half will settle for a variety of reasons.

So we have a core of 5,000 who have paid fees to an adviser and are bought in to whatever answer they have and who may not be willing to support an action that has little direct impact on them.

Of the remaining 90,000, perhaps 40% have already settled.

That leaves 54,000.

Based on what we know, around 40,000 will have absolutely no clue about the storm that is about to break upon them. How do you contact them?

Of the remaining 14,000, even if you knew who they were, you might get 20% to support this.

Still enough for a fund in excess of £2m at £1k each, but that level is too high. More realistically it's £250 a head.

The key here is getting to those impacted.

The agencies should be doing this.

The umbrellas should be doing this.

The larger end users should be doing this.

The trade bodies (IPSE/FCSA/APPSCo) should be doing this.

And are they?

If they are, it's escaped my attention and I'll not speculate on why they are not.

[luxCon]

Déjà vu

There are possibly 100,000 people caught up in this LC.
Many will choose to settle but I expect tens of thousands would be up for fighting it.

Get say 20,000 to club together. Advertise in broadsheets to recruit people.
Everyone chucks in £1000
Fighting fund = £20m

Hire a top tax firm to manage the fund, and bring in top QCs in both tax and administrative law. Get all the QCs to brainstorm possible solutions. Litigate on many fronts. Give HMRC and the Government the biggest legal battle they've ever faced.




It won't happen, of course.

Déjà vu indeed. 3 years and 1 day later, lots of £18 a month since then and nowhere near anywhere.

https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...big-group.html

Yes I agree a proper Big Group could have achieved much, but who is to deliver.

[PokemonStay]

Has any group unhappy with HMRC ever tried that before?

[webberg]

MINE TOO! I hoped this is what WTT / Big Group were doing?
@Webberg

I've posted in the Big Group thread.

The short answer is no.

Every time this thread appears (and it does regularly), we get 30, 50, 100 people promising £1k each.

Test that population and we get perhaps 75% who step up.

This website/forum also shares the characteristic of being used by a small percentage of impacted people. Even if the 75% could be replicated across all users, and we overcome the problem of why somebody in scheme A should pay to support action on scheme B, and we solved issues on holding money, and we were able to stop HMRC playing their usual dirty tricks in litigation, we would need to fund for Supreme Court.

Given the diverse nature of the schemes and number of schemes, we might get the litigation reduced to perhaps 3 or 4 test cases. HMRC interference would mean spending a minimum £5m over the next 5 to 8 years.

And then there's the question of what are you going to argue?

The ability of Government to make law in accordance with their policy?

Good luck with that one.

There are routes to challenge unfair law (Judicial Review) but you have to wait for the law to be applied. See my posts, we are supporting this via a sub group and encourage you to join.

But a mass civil campaign backed by litigation that will not be dismissed as vexatious?

It's not enough to argue that you should not pay tax - you need to say why.

Unless and until people have absolutely no other choice, we would not have the numbers, the funds or the cohesion required.

If this comes together, it will be last minute, say Q1 or 2 2019.

I wish it was different but the practical reality is that a few dozen posters here is not a basis for the sort of action you suggest. We know this from practical experience.

We are gearing for a late surge and if we get the numbers we will do this, but at the moment, whilst we seeing the AML users rightly provoked into action, until more people realise their peril, we have to act for those clients we have.

[Loan Ranger]

MINE TOO! I hoped this is what WTT / Big Group were doing?
@Webberg

I don't think they're anywhere near on the scale I'm talking about.