I’m not saying retro tax is right or wrong, just that it was one of several known* risks with the structure of such loan schemes.
*to advisers, but not always their clients
Many of us protected our clients and provided certainty, by advising them not to do such schemes, due to the very high risks of failure, especially from around 2004.
A couple of times I've responded to HMRC politely, along the lines of:
"it is, of course, difficult to explain to my client that their mistake potentially causes financial penalty when your letter itself contains a careless mistake"
and in both cases HMRC cancelled the penalty.
I had the same issue. It is being released in stages or on request. When requested they manually add it to your account to download via notifications.
This article may be useful
yes, but at 0.000000001%
I understand they have accepted some of his arguments.
Also see the article example with a large tax difference and the reasons (eg personal allowance).
See article Tim Good's article:
But, unlike the case link, with EBTs there are four transactions to consider,
not one? The taxpayer’s bad choice of using a tax scheme, the company settling funds, the trustees deciding to make a loan and the taxpayer accepting the terms of that loan.
Given the trustees hold a valuable asset for beneficiaries, which may include minors, surely the trustees would need to be a willing party to any claim for set aside, to protect their position?
If the transactions have not yet caused unexpected tax (eg HMRC out of time to go after employer, taxpayer doesn’t wish to settle) and the loan charge is a new tax that only hits if the loan is not repaid, where is the mistake to be set aside?
Appealing the gift to UKIP tax treatment seemed hopeless, even if the grounds are amusingly ironic.
For the later donations to the referendum campaign, I wonder if they’ll try arguing s10 IHTA (with s268), on the basis that the intention was effectively spending on leaflets and adverts?