Reply to: Loan Charge on BBC Front Page

[webberg]

Sadly the scheme I did join is not much better. It is called a limited company. To be fair, at least I got some QDOS insurance to cover that.

And don't forget that HMRC had a real go at claiming that a limited company was a form of avoidance.

I bet that the HMRC genius who wasted thousands of hours of time and money on that little gem got the sack. (Not).

[BrilloPad]

I'm sure HMRC are lobbying ministers to close that loophole as well.

In 2030, we get letters saying... "You could have joined a scheme, but didn't - so you've avoided paying the Loan Charge in 2020, and now (as we've backdated it) you owe us a gazillion pounds, you nasty tax dodging little oik".

Sadly the scheme I did join is not much better. It is called a limited company. To be fair, at least I got some QDOS insurance to cover that.

[NotAllThere]

I was lucky enough to have followed CUK on the DTA issue so avoided(evaded?) loan schemes.

I'm sure HMRC are lobbying ministers to close that loophole as well.

In 2030, we get letters saying... "You could have joined a scheme, but didn't - so you've avoided paying the Loan Charge in 2020, and now (as we've backdated it) you owe us a gazillion pounds, you nasty tax dodging little oik".

[Fred Bloggs]

Thank Goodness for NLUK. Or I would never have thought to ask my accountant....

Indeed. Astonishing insight.

[BrilloPad]

the contribution by CUK to the UK contractor community is astonishing. That's why I still come here.

Thank Goodness for NLUK. Or I would never have thought to ask my accountant....

[Fred Bloggs]

Many people were just sick of IR35. The returns were not that good.

I was lucky enough to have followed CUK on the DTA issue so avoided(evaded?) loan schemes.

Good to hear too. The greater good achieved by CUK simply can't be over estimated on that score. In some ways, despite the one off high water mark our former friends elsewhere managed, the contribution by CUK to the UK contractor community is astonishing. That's why I still come here.

[BrilloPad]

c'mon BP. Yes, they said all that stuff too. AND they sometimes said the schemes were "inland revenue approved" too. But didn't that just make it all sound even more too good to be true?

Many people were just sick of IR35. The returns were not that good.

I was lucky enough to have followed CUK on the DTA issue so avoided(evaded?) loan schemes.

[Fred Bloggs]

Given you are likely to be aware that Dammit Chloe (and most other participants of this thread) used a loan scheme, and therefore quite clearly (and regrettably) didn't have these conversations multiple times, I think there was no need for the above.

No, sorry, entirely unaware of Dammit Chloe and his/her circumstances. I have no wish to be offensive to anyone. I have the idea that the majority of long established contractors through the 2000's onward (such as myself) would have had the same experience I had. I was lucky I suppose that my naturally sceptical glass half empty nature kind of protected me from these outcomes. It's a shame others weren't so fortunate but these threads are a golden resource to keep others away from present and future scams. IMHO anyway.

[NotAllThere]

QC checked out. Former HMRC inspector raised no concerns.

What do you mean by checked out? And who was this HMRC inspector you talked to, part of the scheme, or entirely independent?

[dammit chloe]

Given you are likely to be aware that Dammit Chloe (and most other participants of this thread) used a loan scheme, and therefore quite clearly (and regrettably) didn't have these conversations multiple times, I think there was no need for the above.

I used one scheme after I got laid off in the dotcom crash ( after PAYE for 20 years approx ). Never intended to contract. It was recommended by a contractor who I knew from another place. I have had zero marketing calls.

[dammit chloe]

Straw man argument there. Complete lack of substance in your response I'm afraid.

I don't have a recording or a transcript but I would swear on oath I had that exact conversation multiple times. Didn't you?

Short answer. No. Only involved with one scheme, a long, long time ago that was recommended by a contractor I knew after I was laid off in the dotcom crash. QC checked out. Former HMRC inspector raised no concerns. Never had any marketing calls for them.

There was no strawman just a statement of the state of the law until 2017 which you didn't address.

Anyway, ignored from now on.

[WalterWhite]

I had that exact conversation multiple times. Didn't you?

Given you are likely to be aware that Dammit Chloe (and most other participants of this thread) used a loan scheme, and therefore quite clearly (and regrettably) didn't have these conversations multiple times, I think there was no need for the above.

[Iter]

This was covered on Today on R4 this morning.

I didn't have any involvement with loans, so I don't know too much about them.

If loans started in 1999, why didn't HMRC put a stop to the practice in the early noughties? Twenty years seems like an awful long time to wait to clamp down on them.

BBC Iradio player -‘0600 today show’, features this from about minute 52:00 to 57:00

[Fred Bloggs]

Well Keith Gordon was right again this week.

You bold the line but fail to address it and instead chose to make up a story instead. well done. The point was the law allowed it until 2017 until a new precedent was set. And because they couldn't agree for so long the result was tacit acceptance and a larger market.

Straw man argument there. Complete lack of substance in your response I'm afraid.

I don't have a recording or a transcript but I would swear on oath I had that exact conversation multiple times. Didn't you?

[Fred Bloggs]

If only they had said that. Usually it was avoid IR35. And avoid running your own company. It is fully QC approved(not mentioned that the QC approved part was just part of the opinion).

It has been running years. And everyone is doing it. HMRC are aware.

c'mon BP. Yes, they said all that stuff too. AND they sometimes said the schemes were "inland revenue approved" too. But didn't that just make it all sound even more too good to be true?