Reply to: CALL TO ACTION: Loan Charge debate on Thursday the 11th

[BrilloPad]

Why do you have high hopes? I have not seen the detailed arguments but JRs on retrospective tax from a human rights perspective are never successful. There is nothing that prevents retrospective tax law been applied in any UK/European court.
MPs forcing change are the only hope in my view and this is only a slightly higher chance than above as there are maybe 200 MPs so far that support v 430 MPs who dont.

I only have high hopes from what I have heard on the JR. I agree though its a high hurdle to cross.

Re MPs. Lets say 430 MPs did support LCAG. That would not be enough. To vote against Treasury is vote against the government. MPs will not force a GE on this.

[stonehenge]

Why do you have high hopes? I have not seen the detailed arguments but JRs on retrospective tax from a human rights perspective are never successful. There is nothing that prevents retrospective tax law been applied in any UK/European court.
MPs forcing change are the only hope in my view and this is only a slightly higher chance than above as there are maybe 200 MPs so far that support v 430 MPs who dont.

+1

I hope they've got something other than HR.

[wilks]

LCAG have done a brilliant job. And I have high hopes for the JR.

Agreed though - its a high barrier to get over.

Why do you have high hopes? I have not seen the detailed arguments but JRs on retrospective tax from a human rights perspective are never successful. There is nothing that prevents retrospective tax law been applied in any UK/European court.
MPs forcing change are the only hope in my view and this is only a slightly higher chance than above as there are maybe 200 MPs so far that support v 430 MPs who dont.

[BrilloPad]

Agreed. How can average Joe win against the goverment? They make the rules. They have all the money and resources. The game's as good as over. All you can really do is fight a rear guard action. And hope for the best.

LCAG have done a brilliant job. And I have high hopes for the JR.

Agreed though - its a high barrier to get over.

[Fred Bloggs]

That would be a prime candidate for the GAAR. Penalty up to 60%.

Penalties: GAAR - RossMartin.co.uk/

Absolutely. 100%

[stonehenge]

Believe me, a scheme to fix a scheme is going to fail big time and users will face penalties like you've never seen before.

That would be a prime candidate for the GAAR. Penalty up to 60%.

Penalties: GAAR - RossMartin.co.uk/

[Fred Bloggs]

Maybe. I would say both sides of the tax divide are as bad as each other at perpetuating the average joe's misery and just as likely to be right/wrong. The only difference is that HMRC is Government backed which is a very big trump card.

Agreed. How can average Joe win against the goverment? They make the rules. They have all the money and resources. The game's as good as over. All you can really do is fight a rear guard action. And hope for the best.

[dammit chloe]

Maybe you're right. Though from experience, I'd say the devil is in the (undisclosed) detail here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in the public domain, what's declared is in fact, just as likely to be completely incorrect. Why would that be? All part of the effort to side step and mislead the tax authorities who no dobut are investigating the scheme(s) while we read here. Sorry, but I think now is definitely not the time to trust or be naive in anyway about something as serious as deliberate, serious tax avoidance, maybe bordering on wilfull evasion. (Refer HMRC tax spotlights for example). Believe me, a scheme to fix a scheme is going to fail big time and users will face penalties like you've never seen before. It's high stakes this time around.

Maybe. I would say both sides of the tax divide are as bad as each other at perpetuating the average joe's misery and just as likely to be right/wrong. The only difference is that HMRC is Government backed which is a very big trump card.

[Fred Bloggs]

I can't find the page now but there was a complete description of what it was about and how it worked. Seems like it was about phoenixing a loan in a way that didn't trigger Loan Charge under terms that didn't leave you liable. I know that sounds obvious but there were details of the appropriate relevant steps.

It may work it may not but there will be a long court battle either way. Which was also clearly stated.

Seems more like a kick the can approach. Even if technically legal suspect HMRC can twist some arms to catch it.

Maybe you're right. Though from experience, I'd say the devil is in the (undisclosed) detail here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in the public domain, what's declared is in fact, just as likely to be completely incorrect. Why would that be? All part of the effort to side step and mislead the tax authorities who no dobut are investigating the scheme(s) while we read here. Sorry, but I think now is definitely not the time to trust or be naive in anyway about something as serious as deliberate, serious tax avoidance, maybe bordering on wilfull evasion. (Refer HMRC tax spotlights for example). Believe me, a scheme to fix a scheme is going to fail big time and users will face penalties like you've never seen before. It's high stakes this time around.

[BrilloPad]

I can't find the page now but there was a complete description of what it was about and how it worked. Seems like it was about phoenixing a loan in a way that didn't trigger Loan Charge under terms that didn't leave you liable. I know that sounds obvious but there were details of the appropriate relevant steps.

It may work it may not but there will be a long court battle either way. Which was also clearly stated.

Seems more like a kick the can approach. Even if technically legal suspect HMRC can twist some arms to catch it.

Those in TAA are 11 years in without an end in sight. Or hardly a start in sight come to that.

If you can afford to settle then great. If not, then you have to fight.

Hopefully the JR will succeed and this will all prove irrelevant. I suppose now the 5th April deadline is passed. You are either in it or not. So we will have to wait and see. Though I expect to be dead by the time the outcome is known.

[dammit chloe]

I doubt just about anyone else does either, especially the suckers who believe this nonsense.

I can't find the page now but there was a complete description of what it was about and how it worked. Seems like it was about phoenixing a loan in a way that didn't trigger Loan Charge under terms that didn't leave you liable. I know that sounds obvious but there were details of the appropriate relevant steps.

It may work it may not but there will be a long court battle either way. Which was also clearly stated.

Seems more like a kick the can approach. Even if technically legal suspect HMRC can twist some arms to catch it.

[Fred Bloggs]

I know none of the details.

I doubt just about anyone else does either, especially the suckers who believe this nonsense.

[Simon100]

All his links I expect are purely coincidental. I mean why wouldn't Amazon do business with a small family run advertising business.

Yes, you're right, it's very common! In the old days most MPs at least waited until they weren't acting member of Parliament before engaging in this kind of behavior. What an age we live in! At this rate they'll be a hell of a kickback from society at some point in the near future.

[dammit chloe]

FFS!!!! Treasury minister linked to firm which profits from tax enquiries

All his links I expect are purely coincidental. I mean why wouldn't Amazon do business with a small family run advertising business.

[smalldog]

A CLASSIC!

FFS!!!! Treasury minister linked to firm which profits from tax enquiries