HMRC emails - Loancharge Debacle - Freedom of Information

[luxCon]

I understand that. I am trying to understand what state the appeals or lack of appeals leaves as the status quo. The UT has said that CC is the best place to resolve and has directed its judgement that there is no tax to pay. That is that standing precedent as of this moment. Does this precedent change with an appeal? Or could it be the case that the whole process could be started over if HMRC try to collect from someone else in the same way?

The PAYE credit issue doesn't seem to have been resolved, finally, either way.

I cant answer specifics as I'm no expert. However have you read the following threads below by Matt who is Hoey's tax advisor? It may contain the answers you looking for. Other than that talk to Matt on Twitter @ArmadilloSupprt , he is pretty good at engaging and replies


https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post2875351

https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post2875421

[dammit chloe]

HMRC has bottomless financial resources, and an even deeper ego. They will appeal anything to its absolute end.

When they appeal Hoey's UT decision and if Hoey cannot meet the legal cost its the end for all of us pre 2010. HMRC will have then the power to demand all taxes they claim are due with no further recourse from the taxpayer. That is why its in the benefit of all PRE-2010 individuals to support this legal fund appeal;

https://www.gofundme.com/f/hoey-cour...ource=customer

I understand that. I am trying to understand what state the appeals or lack of appeals leaves as the status quo. The UT has said that CC is the best place to resolve and has directed its judgement that there is no tax to pay. That is that standing precedent as of this moment. Does this precedent change with an appeal? Or could it be the case that the whole process could be started over if HMRC try to collect from someone else in the same way?

The PAYE credit issue doesn't seem to have been resolved, finally, either way.

[luxCon]

My understanding is that UT sets precedent. What I don't know is whether an appeal is allowed or when it can be refused. Can it only be appealed based on new information or specific points. It seems grotesquely unfair that HMRC are allowed to win by outspending even though I know it happens. I'm glad I am not in spotlight on this type of legal process I would be ground to dust more than I already am.

See, I think it is OK for Hoey not to appeal, it is also risky but more beneficial for HMRC to appeal. The court system seems to like generating new business.

HMRC has bottomless financial resources, and an even deeper ego. They will appeal anything to its absolute end.

When they appeal Hoey's UT decision and if Hoey cannot meet the legal cost its the end for all of us pre 2010. HMRC will have then the power to demand all taxes they claim are due with no further recourse from the taxpayer. That is why its in the benefit of all PRE-2010 individuals to support this legal fund appeal;

https://www.gofundme.com/f/hoey-cour...ource=customer

[dammit chloe]

If HMRC wins a case, which has become final*, they can issue Follower Notices.

I don't know whether they could do that with the Hoey case. And, if they were able to, could they issue FNs across the board to all loan scheme users, or just to those in the particular scheme that Hoey used?

* final means either (a) the appeals process has been exhausted, (b) permission to appeal has been refused or (c) the appeal has been abandoned

My understanding is that UT sets precedent. What I don't know is whether an appeal is allowed or when it can be refused. Can it only be appealed based on new information or specific points. It seems grotesquely unfair that HMRC are allowed to win by outspending even though I know it happens. I'm glad I am not in spotlight on this type of legal process I would be ground to dust more than I already am.

See, I think it is OK for Hoey not to appeal, it is also risky but more beneficial for HMRC to appeal. The court system seems to like generating new business.

[DealorNoDeal]

If Hoey doesn't prevail then, in theory at least, HMRC have complete discretion in making you responsible for any PAYE shortfall. So in theory they can just demand anything pre 2010 from. That is how I understand from tweets the situation will be. I don't understand the appeals process and why everything defaults to HMRC's view if no/lost appeal by HOey but that is what Saleos was saying.

If HMRC wins a case, which has become final*, they can issue Follower Notices.

I don't know whether they could do that with the Hoey case. And, if they were able to, could they issue FNs across the board to all loan scheme users, or just to those in the particular scheme that Hoey used?

* final means either (a) the appeals process has been exhausted, (b) permission to appeal has been refused or (c) the appeal has been abandoned

[dammit chloe]

Depends whether you are Pre Dec-2010 or post.

If post dec 2010, then you stuck with the Loan Charge and most likely need to settle depending on your circumstances.

For pre 2010, I personally will not settle regardless how many letters HMRC sends me. They appear to have zero grounds to make a claim, and specially with Hoey's recent UT ruling HMRC is in much worse position.

If you are not familiar with Hoey's case I suggest you read this thread fully, and if affected by this donate towards the legal costs that directly benefit the pre-2010 victims. A win or a loss here is a direct win or a loss for everyone effected by the pre-2010 loans.


https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...-refunded.html

If Hoey doesn't prevail then, in theory at least, HMRC have complete discretion in making you responsible for any PAYE shortfall. So in theory they can just demand anything pre 2010 from. That is how I understand from tweets the situation will be. I don't understand the appeals process and why everything defaults to HMRC's view if no/lost appeal by HOey but that is what Saleos was saying.

[luxCon]

Does anyone believe there is mileage in not settling with HMRC, and instead to continue to refute their assertion that we fall under the DR legislation? I've followed this route so far, and have been frustrated by HMRC's reluctance to put their cards on the table, other than to respond to my letters with the same mantra that they believe I have participated in a DR scheme? I'm beginning to think they are just expecting all contractors to seek some form of settlement, and are reluctant to take any further action themselves as they have no confidence in their legal position?

Depends whether you are Pre Dec-2010 or post.

If post dec 2010, then you stuck with the Loan Charge and most likely need to settle depending on your circumstances.

For pre 2010, I personally will not settle regardless how many letters HMRC sends me. They appear to have zero grounds to make a claim, and specially with Hoey's recent UT ruling HMRC is in much worse position.

If you are not familiar with Hoey's case I suggest you read this thread fully, and if affected by this donate towards the legal costs that directly benefit the pre-2010 victims. A win or a loss here is a direct win or a loss for everyone effected by the pre-2010 loans.


https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...-refunded.html

[interestedparty]

I'm surprised this has not been shared here. Lots of chatter on Twitter about this.

A set of FOI emails including from Jim Harra & Jon Thompson. In one of them from 2019 Jim Harra admits even HMRC legal teams can not provide him with any legal basis taxes were due.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...00393.pdf.html


Analysis by barrister Keith Gordon
https://twitter.com/keithmgordon/sta...64567584587777
https://twitter.com/keithmgordon/sta...05309266972672

Good start is to communicate these to your MPs.

Does anyone believe there is mileage in not settling with HMRC, and instead to continue to refute their assertion that we fall under the DR legislation? I've followed this route so far, and have been frustrated by HMRC's reluctance to put their cards on the table, other than to respond to my letters with the same mantra that they believe I have participated in a DR scheme? I'm beginning to think they are just expecting all contractors to seek some form of settlement, and are reluctant to take any further action themselves as they have no confidence in their legal position?

[regron]

Rumour has it, Jim H was asking all LC related FOI's to go via him. If true, someone will be due a meeting with him soon, without coffee

[DealorNoDeal]

I'm amazed HMRC released these emails.

They could have easily invoked one or other of the exemptions under the FOI Act to dodge this request. (That's what they invariably do)

Perhaps they've decided to turn over a new leaf and become open, honest and transparent.

[regron]

Been watching closely and makes a very interesting read and fills me with anger ! Taking away for a minute the subject matter, it shows just how much BS, underhand tactics and manipulation goes on behind closed doors, and this is one of the FOI's that slipped through the net. God only knows what the ones we're not allowed to see say.

Back to the subject at hand, it's a disgrace that this can continue to be ignored. Categoric proof that MP's have been duped and misled. Will anything happen? Doubt it and if it does, it will be years down the line. Whilst I've always been sceptical as to what the APPG can achieve (whilst acknowledgeing they have done a lot) if this latest uncovering doesn't get anywhere, then there really is very little hope and the long, expensive legal battles will have to continue.

[luxCon]

I'm surprised this has not been shared here. Lots of chatter on Twitter about this.

A set of FOI emails including from Jim Harra & Jon Thompson. In one of them from 2019 Jim Harra admits even HMRC legal teams can not provide him with any legal basis taxes were due.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...00393.pdf.html


Analysis by barrister Keith Gordon
https://twitter.com/keithmgordon/sta...64567584587777
https://twitter.com/keithmgordon/sta...05309266972672

Good start is to communicate these to your MPs.