Reply to: HMRC loan charge refund rejected (obviously)

[regron]

Not really, I suspect it comes down to luck of draw as to which scheme you signed up with and the methods used / peculiarities within that scheme.

I cannot for a second believe that any contractor picked a scheme based on the schemes internal workings.

Of course it comes down to the luck of the drawer, so not sure what your disagreement with my post was intended for. Clearly nobody realised what they were getting into and how these schemes worked. By personal circumstance I mean now, today. Depending on which scheme(s) you were caught up in now puts you into a situation whereby you need to make a decision. Settle, or fight and again, depending on your own personal circumstances in life, in general, will determine which way you go. For me, as an ex Hoey scheme user of course the current ongoing litigation is massive for me and will be a huge win but, 'just a drop in the ocean' as I have others I need to fight as well, just as it is a 'drop in the ocean' in the whole scheme/loan charge debacle.

Whilst I appreciate some of your posts are helpful, there is also a side to you where some posts just come across as wanting to disagree and argue. When those posts appear it is clear you have no skin in the game and are therefore not at the forefront of all this. If you were experiencing some of what those that are going through in all of this are, I think, or would hope, you may rethink some of what you have said over time.

[regron]

HMRC didn't until MPs / Parliament forced them to.

And exactly how and why do you think that happened? Think 'dammit chloe' covers that very well.

[eek]

Hence my 'Drop in the ocean' comment. As with all of this mess, it all comes down to personal circumstances.

Not really, I suspect it comes down to luck of draw as to which scheme you signed up with and the methods used / peculiarities within that scheme.

I cannot for a second believe that any contractor picked a scheme based on the schemes internal workings.

[dammit chloe]

HMRC didn't until MPs / Parliament forced them to.

HMT did though and they worked hand in glove with HMRC. So the post was correct.
However, the changes that were made were down to Boris being made PM and him being on record that he would review it if he was. That was mainly due to LCAG work but in the end it was a bit fortunate. Had May/Hammond remained in place there would have been nothing regardless of MPs' pressure. And I probably wouldn't be here to write this. Only just hanging on as it is.

[eek]

I am sure it was yourslef who said at one point (long, long time ago and not verbatim), that HMRC/HMT would not budge on the loan charge when it was set out. Unfortunatley, I don't know if it is me, or since the Forum was spruced up, but I cannot find that exchange of message. Not a dig, or anything like that but, regardless of the outcome, there was a review and it was amended. Just the other side of the coin and if I have the wrong person (because it was definitely said by someone) then obviously I offer my apologies.

HMRC didn't until MPs / Parliament forced them to.

[regron]

You are no less cynical than I am....

I am sure it was yourslef who said at one point (long, long time ago and not verbatim), that HMRC/HMT would not budge on the loan charge when it was set out. Unfortunatley, I don't know if it is me, or since the Forum was spruced up, but I cannot find that exchange of message. Not a dig, or anything like that but, regardless of the outcome, there was a review and it was amended. Just the other side of the coin and if I have the wrong person (because it was definitely said by someone) then obviously I offer my apologies.

[regron]

Hoey only works for you if your circumstances are similar to theirs.

Hence my 'Drop in the ocean' comment. As with all of this mess, it all comes down to personal circumstances.

[exterminator111]

It's frustrating enough that hmrc blackmailed me into settling without ever having proven legally that I owe that money. THen they send me a letter inviting me to apply for a refund and when i do they reject it. Adding insult to injury.

I will almost certainly not appeal as seems not worth it.

I hope one day someone takes these jokers to court and wins based on the fact hMRC never legally proved that the money was owed. This will then open the floodgates for others to get their money back.

[eek]

Maybe I'm too cynical but I'd be surprised if any of these cases succeed in removing scheme users' liability. It's very hard these days to persuade courts to side with anyone involved in tax avoidance. If Judges can conjure up a way of ruling in favour HMRC, they will!

You are no less cynical than I am....

[DealorNoDeal]

Maybe I'm too cynical but I'd be surprised if any of these cases succeed in removing scheme users' liability. It's very hard these days to persuade courts to side with anyone involved in tax avoidance. If Judges can conjure up a way of ruling in favour HMRC, they will!

[eek]

Hoey isn't doing too bad.... small drop in the ocean, but if fighting is your only option other than losing everything anyway, then I'll take it.
This is the issue, HMRC have managed to create such a divide in personal circumstances, it dillutes the fighting numbers whereby people have to make their own personal choices which is understandable, but furstrating.

Hoey only works for you if your circumstances are similar to theirs.

[regron]

If you have open enquiries, the reality is you would probably have to settle eventually anyway. Unless you bought CTDs, paid APNs or made payments on account, all you're doing by delaying settling is racking up more interest.

Yes, I know that there are advisors fighting HMRC but the chances of them winning are slim. And it could drag on for years, maybe even to the end of this decade.

So, put it all behind you, and move on with your life.

Hoey isn't doing too bad.... small drop in the ocean, but if fighting is your only option other than losing everything anyway, then I'll take it.
This is the issue, HMRC have managed to create such a divide in personal circumstances, it dillutes the fighting numbers whereby people have to make their own personal choices which is understandable, but furstrating.

[DealorNoDeal]

If you have open enquiries, the reality is you would probably have to settle eventually anyway. Unless you bought CTDs, paid APNs or made payments on account, all you're doing by delaying settling is racking up more interest.

Yes, I know that there are advisors fighting HMRC but the chances of them winning are slim. And it could drag on for years, maybe even to the end of this decade.

So, put it all behind you, and move on with your life.

[eek]

Thanks for the replies.

From:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-fo...nt-scheme-2020

I think this is the key bit:
"Voluntary payments of Income Tax and National Insurance contributions may be repaid or waived where they relate to certain loans made:

• before 9 December 2010 where HMRC did not have the power to recover the Income Tax or National Insurance contributions at the date the settlement agreement was made"

I guess this means where there wasn't an open tax enquiry for the years. I had open tax enquiries for 2008-2010 as they sent me the assessments within the four year period.

It's contradictory however as I wouldn't have settled if they didn't have valid open enquiries for the years in question - I would have had to pay nothing as they would be too late.

So you had loans between 2008 and 2010 and have open tax years via enquiries for at least 2 of the 3 tax years involved?

If so I suspect you fail to meet the final part of this requirement - as HMRC did take action

• loans were made before 6 April 2016, the avoidance scheme use was disclosed to HMRC and HMRC did not take action (for example, opening an enquiry into an Income Tax return)

[DealorNoDeal]

It's contradictory however as I wouldn't have settled if they didn't have valid open enquiries for the years in question - I would have had to pay nothing as they would be too late.

Yes but, in that scenario, you would have had to pay the LC. It's only after they changed the LC, following the Morse review, that pre-2010 closed years were exempted from the charge.

Many people, with no open enquiries for pre-2010 years, did settle to avoid the LC because, in most cases, the LC worked out considerably more expensive than settling.