Debt of gratitude

[DealorNoDeal]

This has been one of the many criticisms, HMRC inaction or lack of clarity allowed these scheme to become de-facto valid ( even if, arguably since there has been no litigation post 2011 AFAIK, legally dubious ).

Yes, of course, HMRC carry a share of the blame.

They could have done a lot more eg.

1. taking schemes to tribunal more quickly (AFAIK, Sandfield [the Boyle case] is the only contractor loan scheme they've taken to tribunal since the schemes started around 2001)
2. publicising their view on the schemes more widely; how it will end badly for anyone who uses one
3. proactively contacting users and trying to persuade them to desist
4. going after promoters (it's only more recently that HMRC have acquired more powers in this area; however, even now, I doubt they can shut operations down quickly, especially offshore)

The problem is, the schemes were so lucrative, the promoters would go to all sorts of lengths* (including sharp practice!) to keep them going. There are even total scumbag firms still out there peddling the same crap.

*
(a) not pointing out the risks
(b) not telling new users that existing users were already under investigation by HMRC
(c) bare minimum disclosure to make it harder for HMRC to identify (including not complying with DOTAS)
(d) tweaking arrangements to circumvent new anti-avoidance legislation (eg. Dec 2010 DR rules, Loan Charge)
etc.

[dammit chloe]

Caveat emptor. As always, its the little guys that suffer.

Caveat Emptor is not good enough in this case. Take a company like AML which run payroll for thousands in plain sight for many years. So common that people will inevitably assume herd immunity. This has been one of the many criticisms, HMRC inaction or lack of clarity allowed these scheme to become de-facto valid ( even if, arguably since there has been no litigation post 2011 AFAIK, legally dubious ).

[Paralytic]

Of course it was risky but the risk wasn't communicated to the user and the user cannot be expected to know or realise the implications.

Caveat emptor. As always, its the little guys that suffer.

[dammit chloe]

Everyone here owes a huge debt of gratitude to the folks who campaigned tirelessly to change the LC. I don't know who these heroes are but I take my hat off to them.

Personally, I'm not affected by the LC but I absolutely applaud what this group has achieved.

If your loans were post-2010, and are still caught by the LC, blame the shysters who suckered you into this. The Government legislated in Dec 2010 to block disguised remuneration, and scheme promoters must have known it was risky to fly in the face of this legislation and continue peddling loan schemes.

Of course it was risky but the risk wasn't communicated to the user and the user cannot be expected to know or realise the implications.

Rather than a simple and clean approach the Govt took a complex one that allowed the inevitable loopholes and thus didn't actually block schemes. I suspect they only wanted to target certain groups of people and not others as usual.

[Paralytic]

If your loans were post-2010, and are still caught by the LC, blame the shysters who suckered you into this. The Government legislated in Dec 2010 to block disguised remuneration, and scheme promoters must have known it was risky to fly in the face of this legislation and continue peddling loan schemes.

Risky to who, though? I'm sure they determined it was less risky to them and peddled away.

[DealorNoDeal]

Everyone here owes a huge debt of gratitude to the folks who campaigned tirelessly to change the LC. I don't know who these heroes are but I take my hat off to them.

Personally, I'm not affected by the LC but I absolutely applaud what this group has achieved.

If your loans were post-2010, and are still caught by the LC, blame the shysters who suckered you into this. The Government legislated in Dec 2010 to block disguised remuneration, and scheme promoters must have known it was risky to fly in the face of this legislation and continue peddling loan schemes.