Share this content
12

Director loan a/c credits PAYE specific re payment

https://www.taxinsider.co.uk/salary-waivers-giving-it-up-properly

Didn't find your answer?

This is shown in this link and there is nothing in English law that extends that special PAYE payment treatment to interest (re CT61s) or distributions etc. receivable by directors.

https://www.taxinsider.co.uk/salary-waivers-giving-it-up-properly

Despite what most people here seem to think.

Replies (12)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Psycho
By Wilson Philips
15th Sep 2020 22:05

Eh? That is an article about payment of salary. There was no need to mention interest (or any other form of reward) because it was of absolutely no relevance to the point in hand. It’s a bit like the case that you cited earlier, which decided an altogether different issue.

You can continue to raise this topic as often as you want - no-one is going to agree with you. (Particularly because there is in fact plenty of case law, not to mention the opinion of those that know what they’re talking about, which supports the same treatment for interest.)

Thanks (3)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By whitevanman
15th Sep 2020 22:05

When I saw Justin's post, I assumed the linked article was nothing to do with his views / comments (as is so often the case). So I didn't bother to read it. Thanks for confirming that I was correct (and will continue to adopt my new approach)!

Thanks (4)
Replying to whitevanman:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
15th Sep 2020 22:37

Indeed. Justin does also say that HMRC agree with him, which is a rather odd standpoint given what HMRC actually say in respect of timing of recognition of interest.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By whitevanman
15th Sep 2020 22:49

If, at some point, in a 10,000 word article, HMRC use the word "yes", I think that automatically means they agree with Justin.
As I say, I have not read whatever it was he linked to but would bet everything I own (plus the mortgages) that they did not say what he thinks (or alleges) they said.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
16th Sep 2020 09:40

Notable that the two people most often wrong here (almost constantly wrong I would say) still disagree and give no legislative/case law justification for their wrong view.

The PAYE law is obviously the exception that proves the (general) rule re what is a "payment" for tax purposes and it ain't a DLA credit.

The previous threads confirm that HMRC do not disagree with that view re interest & distributions at least (or at least they do not express a contrary view there).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
16th Sep 2020 12:23

One needs to bear in mind that when talking about disagreement you are pretty much in a minority of one - there are far more than two of us that disagree with you. Including tax experts with a proven record in knowing what they are talking about.

Why is the PAYE law "obviously" the exception that proves the rule? Just because you can't find any similar case law discussing interest? Flawed logic at its worst.

You keep referencing cases and articles that make no mention of interest treatment, jumping to the illogical conclusion that this must mean that the treatment of interest is different. Ignoring the fact that interest was of no relevance whatsoever to the subject matter in hand.

But there have in fact been references to case law supporting the view that a credit of interest to DLA is payment. It's not my problem if you choose to disregard them.

"The previous threads confirm that HMRC do not disagree with that view re interest & distributions at least" Do they? I'd love to know how you arrive at that conclusion. You have repeatedly said that HMRC agree with you, yet despite requests have offered nothing to support that contention. Given that HMRC's own guidance appears to disagree with you, I think we just have to disregard your unsupported claims.

In short, you can carry on beating your drum. But until you can come up with something concrete to support your stance (as opposed to material that is utterly irrelevant) you are probably best ignored. I think that I'll finish by quoting Walton J:

"So, once again, I do not think that case is of any assistance at all, because it was directed to an entirely different point and entirely different circumstances".

It is reassuring that the decision-makers are (in the main) able to discern what is relevant and what is not.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By whitevanman
16th Sep 2020 12:43

It seems doubtful that Justin is familiar with/aware of the decision in Minsham Properties which, in effect, confirms the situation re interest but we shouldn't let that spoil his day(s) (daze?).

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By whitevanman
16th Sep 2020 12:03

As said in my first post, I have given up reading yours. That is unfortunate because, unlike you, I dont rule out the possibility that you could have something worthwhile to say.
Perhaps you could do everyone the courtesy of reading your own post and ask yourself whether it conveys a rational argument and whether it clearly does so. If not you might edit.
Sadly previous posts do support the view that, at best you have not read the article etc to which you refer or possibly have completely mis-construed it. Invariably, you do not set out any clear reasoning and rely instead on simple assertion, leaping from point to point and resorting to personal insults for anyone who disagrees with the point you appear to be struggling to make

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
21st Sep 2020 14:41

I've not bothered reading the above responses (life is too short etc.), but HMRC seem to agree with me here where interest is "capitalised" at least (which is arguably often the case even if done accidentally):

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/savings-and-investment-manual/s...

That's in addition to all the shareholder loan account etc. arguments.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
21st Sep 2020 15:31

Well

1) That point has not been raised in any of the previous discussions so I’m still waiting for you to point out in those earlier discussions the evidence that HMRC agree with you

2) There is no argument that interest capitalised on a loan account is not paid. A point that has been known for years.

But we’ve not been discussing a loan. We’ve been discussing a director’s current account - an important distinction for more reasons than one.

Did you read that guidance all the way through? Did you spot the

“Kirsty is unable to draw on her loan account. The situation is therefore:”?

Why do you think HMRC felt it necessary to make that point?

What do you think their analysis might have been had they said instead:

“Kirsty is able to draw on her loan account. The situation is therefore:”?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
21st Sep 2020 14:54

You have contradicted yourself above. My time is too valuable and life's too short to continue this pointless discussion.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
21st Sep 2020 15:28

Yet again you are seeing things that don't exist as there is no contradiction.

The "life's too short" stance is a rather childish attempt to dodge the questions, but you're right - your arguments put forward have no point so I agree that we should leave this one to wither on the vine.

Thanks (1)
Share this content

Related posts