Lying to Parliament?

[outsidein]

If Mel Stride did lie to Parliament, He would have breached the Ministerial Code of conduct

As a result of that speech, many MPs voted in favour of the legislation - only now are they having their eyes opened by their affected constituents and 86 thus far have signed the Early Day Motion requesting it be amended to only start in 2017 - which would make it a fair(er) tax.

I'm thinking everyone should write to their MPs asking for Mel Stride to be held to the Ministerial Code, that his lies and the accompanying bunkum about very few people being hurt misled the House to vote in favour of a signally nasty piece of legislation. Backing it up by pointing out that 86 (and growing) MPs are against its retrospective nature.

If they do take him to task on it, he will have to retract his lies or prove they were not.
If he was found to have intended to mislead the House, he should tender his resignation

Have you thought about joining the Loan Charge Action Group (LCAG) or WTT's Big Group? They are doing Sterling work and can provide a platform of support if nothing else.

I know many readers will think that we had it coming but if HMRC get away with retrospectively reinventing loans as income - its only a small step to deciding that all dividends paid from what they're calling PSCs as Disguised Remuneration and going back 20 years on that too. Divide and conquer - first it will be those companies that paid dividends to seemingly non-working/non-contributing directors

Frankly, if you do or don't agree with the Loan Charge, getting it limited to have no retroactive effect will make them think twice about whatever else they have planned for the flexible workforce!

[starstruck]

Yes, but if it had made money it would be taxable at the higher amount.

Not sure what you mean about having made money. But the LC "outstanding" value is the original amount of the loan (converted to GBP if not already) minus any repayments made (converted to GBP if not already) so when the lender writes off all or part of the loan, whilst that removes the obligation to repay, it does not reduce the original value, nor does ccy depreciation; so you have nothing outstanding as far as the lender is concerned (which means no loan), yet you still have a loan as far as HMRC is concerned. It's mind-bending really.

[me206et]

As far as HMRC are concerned. If a loan is waived, without being repaid fully in cash, it is still "outstanding"; even though to everyone else it is not "outstanding" as it has been written off. So they are applying a charge to a loan that exists only in their minds. So the tax is really on the original loan (without caring what has happened to it since, e.g. depreciation, write off etc..). It's pure retrospection.

Yes, but if it had made money it would be taxable at the higher amount.

[starstruck]

Not sure how they can assess you on a loan that is not outstanding....if they and you cant prove you had it in the first place and there are no trustees to declare its outstanding I dont see why you need worry.If there is no evidence anywhere it will be impossible to tax you on it.

Dont take my word for it tho.

As far as HMRC are concerned. If a loan is waived, without being repaid fully in cash, it is still "outstanding"; even though to everyone else it is not "outstanding" as it has been written off. So they are applying a charge to a loan that exists only in their minds. So the tax is really on the original loan (without caring what has happened to it since, e.g. depreciation, write off etc..). It's pure retrospection.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Not sure how they can assess you on a loan that is not outstanding....if they and you cant prove you had it in the first place and there are no trustees to declare its outstanding I dont see why you need worry.If there is no evidence anywhere it will be impossible to tax you on it.

Dont take my word for it tho.

[ChimpMaster]

I had loans around 20 years ago that were waived over a decade ago. The years are closed. The loans are gone. The lenders are gone. I owe no tax. I have no enquiries. But HMRC ignore waiving of loans, they only consider cash repayments. So when the LC2019 hits, I will have a tax bill of tens of thousands on these loans. HMRC/Mel Stride say I am free to repay them to avoid LC2019 ... but (if I wanted to) how exactly could I do that? I can't obviously as (a) they have been waived so there is zero balance to repay and (b) there is nobody to repay anyway.

How can that be anything other than a retrospective tax and now Mel is saying in Parliament, I have broken the law (whilst following the advice of a qualified accountant)!

Similar situation to me.

It's interesting to note that the LC only applies to loans extant on April 2016 (or thereabouts, can't remember exact date). I too have no open loans because they were re-paid through some other mechanism (I paid a fee for this. I have no open enquiries etc and all scheme providers are gone and the Trust tells me they have destroyed all information > 6 years old.

HMRC want proof that the loans are no longer outstanding. The Trust won't give that proof because apparently they've destroyed this data (it's 10 years old).

So it feels like I'm stuck having to pay the tax on a loan on which there is no information anywhere - aside from the data that HMRC has on P11Ds and tax returns on which the loans were declared, and BIK paid, all those years ago. And of course, we can't offset the thousands in BIK paid.

[starstruck]

IMHO he is unfortunately correct that the LC itself is not retrospective....they are smart.... its being applied in the future.

How he can say that paying IHT on wages is correct I dont know.

Obviously its ridiculous thats its taken so many years to come up with the wheeze... given that they think all loans over the last 20 years are caught...regardless of what type of scheme they may originate at that must be retrospective in effect if not in semantics.

I had loans around 20 years ago that were waived over a decade ago. The years are closed. The loans are gone. The lenders are gone. I owe no tax. I have no enquiries. But HMRC ignore waiving of loans, they only consider cash repayments. So when the LC2019 hits, I will have a tax bill of tens of thousands on these loans. HMRC/Mel Stride say I am free to repay them to avoid LC2019 ... but (if I wanted to) how exactly could I do that? I can't obviously as (a) they have been waived so there is zero balance to repay and (b) there is nobody to repay anyway.

How can that be anything other than a retrospective tax and now Mel is saying in Parliament, I have broken the law (whilst following the advice of a qualified accountant)!

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Extract from Hansard today.

It appears Mr Stride thinks that illegality has occurred, despite the Supreme Court and HMRC always saying otherwise.


Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
To follow on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), the retrospective nature of the 2019 loan charge could bankrupt thousands of people. Will the Government revise legislation to ensure that that does not happen, with the loan charge only applying to disguised remuneration loans made after the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017?

Mel Stride



This is not retrospective legislation. The activities and arrangements entered into by those who are in scope of this measure were not legal when they were entered into, even though they may have been entered into in the past. The loan charge is there not to apply penalties for that behaviour, but to ensure that those individuals pay the right amount of tax.

IMHO he is unfortunately correct that the LC itself is not retrospective....they are smart.... its being applied in the future.

How he can say that paying IHT on wages is correct I dont know.

Obviously its ridiculous thats its taken so many years to come up with the wheeze... given that they think all loans over the last 20 years are caught...regardless of what type of scheme they may originate at that must be retrospective in effect if not in semantics.

[GreenMirror]

I would like Mr Stride to think for himself and not just do everything HMRC tell him to.

[Pebbles]

Follow up?

Perhaps Mr Aldous could be persuaded to ask a follow up question asking why it was illegal? And why Mr Stride is misleading Parliament.

[Loan Ranger]

Extract from Hansard today.

It appears Mr Stride thinks that illegality has occurred, despite the Supreme Court and HMRC always saying otherwise.


Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
To follow on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), the retrospective nature of the 2019 loan charge could bankrupt thousands of people. Will the Government revise legislation to ensure that that does not happen, with the loan charge only applying to disguised remuneration loans made after the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017?

Mel Stride
This is not retrospective legislation. The activities and arrangements entered into by those who are in scope of this measure were not legal when they were entered into, even though they may have been entered into in the past. The loan charge is there to give us a few £Bn windfall..

FTFH

[QCApproved]

All this time travel is bamboozling Mel - his line is becoming irrelevant as anyone who decomposes it can see its retrospective
However, he has made a statement that the schemes were "not legal" without any detail and what he means by that. One presumes he will be able to share what the statutory or case law basis for that is and when it applied from so that we can refer to them, and if not qualify or correct that statement
The chap is probably not the safest pair of hands for this omnishambles which is taking on water daily.

[starstruck]

I can't believe he said that! Tax avoidance is not illegal! Once again the lines between tax evasion and tax avoidance are deliberately being blurred. So all those people that settled as part of CLSO1 were criminals who were let off were they?! And what about all the people applying for CLSO2 now, are they also criminals? According to Mel they are.

[Old Greg]

Extract from Hansard today.

It appears Mr Stride thinks that illegality has occurred, despite the Supreme Court and HMRC always saying otherwise.


Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
To follow on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), the retrospective nature of the 2019 loan charge could bankrupt thousands of people. Will the Government revise legislation to ensure that that does not happen, with the loan charge only applying to disguised remuneration loans made after the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017?

Mel Stride
This is not retrospective legislation. The activities and arrangements entered into by those who are in scope of this measure were not legal when they were entered into, even though they may have been entered into in the past. The loan charge is there not to apply penalties for that behaviour, but to ensure that those individuals pay the right amount of tax.

If Mr Stride thinks that illegality occurred, then how is he lying?

[webberg]

Extract from Hansard today.

It appears Mr Stride thinks that illegality has occurred, despite the Supreme Court and HMRC always saying otherwise.


Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
To follow on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), the retrospective nature of the 2019 loan charge could bankrupt thousands of people. Will the Government revise legislation to ensure that that does not happen, with the loan charge only applying to disguised remuneration loans made after the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017?

Mel Stride
This is not retrospective legislation. The activities and arrangements entered into by those who are in scope of this measure were not legal when they were entered into, even though they may have been entered into in the past. The loan charge is there not to apply penalties for that behaviour, but to ensure that those individuals pay the right amount of tax.