Why now?

[regron]

It's brilliant isn't it.

HMRC sit on their hands for 20 years while the mess piles up all around them.

But no matter, they can just get legislation passed to clean up their mess.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...84%20James.pdf

Mmmm.... So......

According to that FOI (thanks for sharing) it was October 2015 when they instructed the legislation for the charge be drafted.

It was the 4th November when HMRC won the Rangers tax case at the court of session stage, which declared loans should have been deducted as PAYE by the employer. HMRC would have known about the decision just before that date. I see more than a coincidence between the timing of the two !!

I'm sure it played out something like this.

HMRC:

1. We won't' need a back up as we will win the Rangers Case
2. S**t, this isn't looking good, we may need a back up plan
3. Holy Cr*p, we won, but not the result we wanted, get that backup plan written up now !!

And said Loan Charge was born !!

[Loan Ranger]

It's brilliant isn't it.

HMRC sit on their hands for 20 years while the mess piles up all around them.

But no matter, they can just get legislation passed to clean up their mess.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...84%20James.pdf

[regron]

It says it all that the Government has had to introduce legislation (LC) to tackle schemes which HMRC have been aware of for 20 years.

What sort of department allows something to fester and spiral out of control for 20 years? In any other line of work, senior heads would have rolled.

I was going to say "piss poor performance", but I think "not fit for purpose" better sums up HMRC.

(LC) to catch all loans back to 1999, yet the following spotlight doesn't appear until July 2016 !! Says it all really !!

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/contract...-cost-you-more

[Loan Ranger]

It says it all that the Government has had to introduce legislation (LC) to tackle schemes which HMRC have been aware of for 20 years.

What sort of department allows something to fester and spiral out of control for 20 years? In any other line of work, senior heads would have rolled.

I was going to say "piss poor performance", but I think "not fit for purpose" better sums up HMRC.

[webberg]

There is a convergence of a number of "events" at the moment which is in part deliberately driven and in part the inevitable consequence of HMRC's long running campaign against contractors.

We see the EDM from the Lib Dems. We have TSC investigating how HMRC runs its enquiries. We have a number of cases lined up for FTT. We have the BBC saying that they will be paying the "back tax" of presenters they have "forced" to use PSCs. We have a growing realisation that the problem spreads beyond IT contractors. We have more "noise" around why firms are allowed to promote schemes that HMRC has said are avoidance.

In short, there is a sense that only now is the complexity, inconsistency and unfairness of the IR35 policy launched by HMRC 18 years ago, coming to light. Those who exploited that flawed policy and who created to a degree the problems are being exposed.

We have yet to see a reaction against all those who benefited (end clients, agencies, recruiters) but again, there are signs that the media in particular are beginning to realise the situation.

A multi billion pound industry was allowed to be unregulated and was ruthlessly reamed by promoters and yes, advisers, for two decades and continues today.

A lot of people in this nightmare are reluctant to become involved in any action that may identify them as users of what is now called avoidance, who are perhaps embarrassed that they were so easily fooled, who are perhaps feeling guilty that they made a decision to pay less tax.

If so, it is important to get this in perspective.

Accept that you paid less tax than a person who was an employee. That is not illegal. There is no legal or moral or ethical benchmark that says what an employee pays is the "right" or "fair" amount of tax.

The media and to a large degree, MPs, have been brainwashed by a very successful HMRC campaign that this should be the case.

You can however spend a lot of energy defending what you did and you will never convince an ill informed critic that what you did was "right". A better informed critic may also be difficult to convince but at least they will be able to see some of balance in the position.

Regardless, you are where you are.

If you feel that you have deliberately defaulted on your tax, settle with HMRC via their current offer. You will feel better.

If you feel that for whatever reason, you have paid less tax but as a result of being mis-sold, duped, lied to, too trusting, etc, then NOW is the time to lend your weight to the various efforts to bring some semblance of equity to the situation.

You should not be embarrassed that a younger, more naive you was less able to make a judgement on these matters. We've all made decisions that we regret. The secret to growing up is how you deal with the consequences.