It's probably more as a result ...

... of the HSBC tax evasion scandal and other secret offshore bank accounts.

I may be wrong

I thought the new legislation stopped companies from blaming their employees, as many companies have claimed they were 'totally unaware' of the tax evasion being promoted within their companies.

It will cost companies more, but that always happens. Some people 'bend the rules', and everyone else has to pay the price through increased legislation which is introduced to try to put a stop to it.

Someone is being stupid

It may be me, because I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to 'borrow' several times their 'declared earnings', UNLESS they were quite sure it wasn't repayable. If you are given money, and not expected to repay it, then it isn't a loan, it's a gift.

"The fact is it is a repayable loan. This is a fact." 

So give us the rest of the 'facts'. When is it repayable, and how can it be repaid when the borrower has very little 'income'?

Anyway, not my problem, thank goodness. I just hope the UK's taxpayers get justice.

Better late than never

The government should be doing everything it can to stamp out artificial tax avoidance and evasion.

It may be difficult to prove the 'loan' isn't a genuine loan, and HMRC may have chosen to pursue the wrong argument, but we all know it is disguised remuneration, and anyone with one ounce of common sense knows that NOBODY (other than a complete idiot) would take a genuine repayable loan (of many multiples their declared 'income') in exchange for real pay.

If anyone was foolish enough ... then ... words fail me. They fell for a scam, and nobody gets tax relief because they lost money to a scam, whether it's tax avoidance schemes, holiday property shares, or Nigerian transfers of money.

A non-repayable loan is NOT a loan. It's a 'pretend' loan purely to evade tax, and therefore fails the honesty test. You try to argue that black is white, while also arguing the opposite.

I often wonder ...

... if people would be so keen on Royalty if we had someone like the Duke of Edinburgh, or Prince Andrew as our Monarch?

We have been very fortunate with our Queen. I doubt any Royal (past, present or future) will compare well to her. 

Maybe ...

... the 'disguised remuneration loans' could be identified as 'non-commercial' loans, ie. no credit checks, interest free and no repayment plan, and all by reason of employment and (to prevent honest people being caught up) the money loaned hadn't been taxed at source and tax relief not claimed upon it.

Thank you

:)

I like the Queen

I'm not so fond of the next lot, and there are too many hangers on. I would be more in favour of royalty if we could get rid of the hopeless ones and didn't have to tolerate a growing number of them.

We could maybe have a compromise? Put all the willing Royals up for election and let the country decide which one 'rules'?

EDIT: and opportunity to replace them every few years if they turn out to be useless.

The link isn't working

How do I get to the Official Mailbox?

I understand the desperation

If I had dodged tax (sorry, I meant borrowed most of my income - tax free) for many years, spent the money, and then HMRC came a calling for some tax on that income, I would try to get someone else to pay the consequences.

I don't mind who pays and I would be VERY happy if the promoters and abetters (the so called employers) paid the consequences, so long as it isn't the taxpayer. We have to get the tax. The UK really needs the money.