Reply to: Loan charge review - report and outcome

[dammit chloe]

It's generally a weighty, majestic document that should occasion a 'mushroom cloud' of despair over all HMRC offices! However, I am somewhat confused by the omission, within the 'Key Recommendations' towards the close of the document, of any reference to the 2019 Loan Charge taking effect only from the date of the Finance Bill 2017 enactment date. This was a key 'proposition' repeatedly cited by Sir Ed and others and, most importantly, an entirely credible argument to table. Hmmmmm.......

Yes it is missing it is quoted in reference but not in recommendation. I don't know why as I am not privy.

I would say that if you look at the recommendations it looks like they are proposing practical recommendations within the TMA1970 protections to provide a solution that allows closure of both LC and underlying tax issues on a voluntary basis.

Added together, IMO, it comes close to the same thing.

I know some may disagree.

[Specsgalore]

APPG report - some of the key argument has been missed?

It's generally a weighty, majestic document that should occasion a 'mushroom cloud' of despair over all HMRC offices! However, I am somewhat confused by the omission, within the 'Key Recommendations' towards the close of the document, of any reference to the 2019 Loan Charge taking effect only from the date of the Finance Bill 2017 enactment date. This was a key 'proposition' repeatedly cited by Sir Ed and others and, most importantly, an entirely credible argument to table. Hmmmmm.......

[cojak]

I do not expect AtW to return to this forum.

[sst2019]

......

You sir are a complete and utter moron...

If you read the medical literature there is a clear relationship between debt (in young males) and self-harm/suicide. Ergo this can and there is likely an increase of depression/self-harm/attempted suicide in men due to the draconian retrospective tax law.

100,000 people in problem debt attempt suicide every year - Money and Mental Health Policy Institute (MMHPI) Read more at: 100,000 people in problem debt attempt suicide every year, charity claims

Austerity a factor in rising suicide rate among UK men – study
Austerity a factor in rising suicide rate among UK men – study | Society | The Guardian

Suicide and the 2008 economic recession: Who is most at risk? Trends in suicide rates in England and Wales 2001–2011
Suicide Mortality Patterns in Greek Work Force before and during the Economic Crisis
Why are suicide rates rising in young men but falling in the elderly?-- a time-series analysis of trends in England and Wales 1950-1998. - PubMed - NCBI

HMRC reports itself to police watchdog over taxpayer’s suicide
https://www.ft.com/content/b5c2b6e2-...1-8d9ef1626294

I am sure sitting on your moral high-horse and gloating over the tragedies is giving your ego a massage.

[NeedTheSunshine]

CUK in this form has been around since 2005. There were 2 earlier versions. In 2005/2006 there were two posters with obvious issues. AndyW and the one above. AndyW was banned. AtW did not.

I suppose it is because AtW has an amazing company, employs several, is regularly in the papers and has met the queen a couple of times for services to industry.

Back in 2008 when retrospective tax properly started, the professional forums were not the safe space they were a year ago. Myself and DonkeyRhubarb fought hard to get people together. The merciless attacks by trolls, and AtW was one of the most prolific, were awful. A few years ago the professional forums were clearly up following a huge effort by admin and cojak.

I hope we are not going to regress 10 years?

DonkeyRhubard - that's a blast from the past! I hope his group's BN66 case is progressing well and wish them the best of luck.

[GreenMirror]

Sad, pathetic and utterly clueless. One for the ignore list.

CUK in this form has been around since 2005. There were 2 earlier versions. In 2005/2006 there were two posters with obvious issues. AndyW and the one above. AndyW was banned. AtW did not.

I suppose it is because AtW has an amazing company, employs several, is regularly in the papers and has met the queen a couple of times for services to industry.

Back in 2008 when retrospective tax properly started, the professional forums were not the safe space they were a year ago. Myself and DonkeyRhubarb fought hard to get people together. The merciless attacks by trolls, and AtW was one of the most prolific, were awful. A few years ago the professional forums were clearly up following a huge effort by admin and cojak.

I hope we are not going to regress 10 years?

[dammit chloe]

It’s pretty shocking to see people exploiting human tragedy in order to gain personal financial advantage, but then again people who get into such blatant overt tax “avoidance” probably don’t have strong moral compass.

HMRC says 40k people affected, my guess here it is 90% males aged 30-59: annual suicide rate for that group in the UK is around 20 per year per 100k (source: Suicide in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia )

It therefore follows that on average the affected group should have had around 8 suicides per year or around 24 in the time period since LC19 was announced, which is 12 times higher than your reported figures.

Nobody should be contemplating suicide for any reason, especially over money debts - LC19 does not cancel bankrupcy, it’s not medieval times now.

Sad, pathetic and utterly clueless. One for the ignore list.

[dammit chloe]

Do you have a view on why alleged suicide rate among LC19 affected group appears to be around 10 times smaller than the national average?

Yours is 10 times smaller than the national average. That's why you post so much.

[AtW]

Do you have a view on why alleged suicide rate among LC19 affected group appears to be around 10 times smaller than the national average?

[Albert49]

It’s pretty shocking to see people exploiting human tragedy in order to gain personal financial advantage, but then again people who get into such blatant overt tax “avoidance” probably don’t have strong moral compass.

HMRC says 40k people affected, my guess here it is 90% males aged 30-59: annual suicide rate for that group in the UK is around 20 per year per 100k (source: Suicide in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia )

It therefore follows that on average the affected group should have had around 8 suicides per year or around 24 in the time period since LC19 was announced, which is 12 times higher than your reported figures.

Nobody should be contemplating suicide for any reason, especially over money debts - LC19 does not cancel bankrupcy, it’s not medieval times now.

I see your Majestic post count has increased by about 20 since your previous post, get a life and stop wallowing in other peoples misery, unfortunately your "Nobody should be contemplating suicide for any reason" post is not going to stop them happening, mainly because the world does not know that the sun shines out of your ar*e , your opinion on every subject is the correct one, and even though you try to disseminate it by spending your life posting on this forum , most people don't want to hear it.

[AtW]

Your post count may be majestic but you are a self righteous insensitive twat, the threat of the loan charge with the clause that death before April 6th means it can be avoided has already lead to at least 2 suicides and as that date approaches may lead to more, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.

It’s pretty shocking to see people exploiting human tragedy in order to gain personal financial advantage, but then again people who get into such blatant overt tax “avoidance” probably don’t have strong moral compass.

HMRC says 40k people affected, my guess here it is 90% males aged 30-59: annual suicide rate for that group in the UK is around 20 per year per 100k (source: Suicide in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia )

It therefore follows that on average the affected group should have had around 8 suicides per year or around 24 in the time period since LC19 was announced, which is 12 times higher than your reported figures.

Nobody should be contemplating suicide for any reason, especially over money debts - LC19 does not cancel bankrupcy, it’s not medieval times now.

[smalldog]

Parliamentary business next week

Thursday 4 April
The Commons opens, at 09.30 GMT, with Brexit Questions, followed by the weekly Commons Business Statement from the Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom.
Then come two backbench motions. The first, led by the Conservative Ross Thompson, is on the introduction of the 2019 Loan Charge, which deals with HMRC's treatment of people facing huge bills for back taxes, sometimes amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The charges are applied to people who had been encouraged to set up private limited companies by their tax advisers and, in many cases, their employers, but had been caught be a retrospective change in tax law.

Plus: A cross-party group of MPs has written to Philip Hammond, the chancellor, accusing the Treasury of making false claims in an official report about the controversial loan charge.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

[stonehenge]

If you are contemplating going with one of these LC avoidance schemes.

Ask yourself this.

What are the chances of the ̶p̶e̶d̶d̶l̶e̶r̶ promoter of said scheme still being around when the SHTF? Will they defend you though the courts, or will you be left to fend off HMRC on your own?

[webberg]

For what it's worth, we have seen now 8 different schemes claiming to avoid the loan charge.

Many have come from sources that are or have been associated with schemes in the past. Some have arrived from more recent entrants to the scene.

Naming them here is not helpful (or permitted) but even before you get to think about the scheme on offer, ask yourself if these are sources you trust?

The legislation is clear. It creates a definition of a loan and a definition of a reduction in the value of the loan for the purposes of a tax charge.

Where the reduction is to be achieved by a "repayment" is has to be "in money".

Much learned sweat has been spent in analysing that phrase and to no great surprise has come up with reasons why "exchanges of financial/fiduciary interests, rights and obligations are the equivalent of "in money".

Right.

In due course a Judge in a Tribunal will look at this. He/she will ask what is meant by the phrase in the absence of a legal definition - in the context of the legislation.

It may be that those greater minds than mine are correct and that legally, using a right to receive owed to you to, to satisfy an obligation to a lender, is treated as payment of the debt.

In the context of what the legislation on the loan charge intends however, will a literal interpretation of law, not used in Tax Law, hold any weight?

Unless you can show real money moving through your bank account to settle your obligation, my view is that every scheme we see will struggle.

Even if that can be achieved, all it does is move you to the next hurdle - was that part of a tax avoidance scheme?

[stonehenge]

There is a perfectly legal mechanism to avoid the LC

Use pension contributions to relieve it.

This is only guaranteed to be effective with closed years.

Some here have cautioned against using pension contributions to mitigate open years BUT it doesn't carry any of the risks associated with dodgy schemes.

Also, pensions don't involve (possibly dubious) tax advisors & QCs !!!