Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content

Second loan charge review underway

Sir Amyas Morse will conduct an independent review of the controversial loan charge and report his findings to the Chancellor Sajid Javid by mid-November 2019.   

12th Sep 2019
Sajid Javid
Wiki_Commons_Foreign_and_Commonwealth_Office_Creative_Britain_aw

As part of his campaign to become Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised to review the loan charge, and when he got the job he followed through on this promise.

The loan charge lobbyists were told that this review would be independent, and indeed it will be led by the former head of the National Audit Office (NAO) Sir Aymas Morse. He is a well-respected figure who was formerly the global managing partner of PwC before he led the NAO for ten years, holding the government to account on its spending.       

Terms of review

Morse will consider whether or not the loan charge is the right way to collect tax due from the use of disguised remuneration schemes (including contractors loans), and as such his review will be much wider than the first HMRC technical review. That review was branded a whitewash as it did little more than restate the technical operation of the law and didn’t examine its effects on individual taxpayers.   

We don’t yet know the boundaries which Morse will work within for his review, but he is expected to report back to Sajid Javid by mid-November. This doesn’t provide much time to take statements from a wide range of witnesses including HMRC officers, Treasury officials, taxpayers, and tax advisers, and to weigh up all the evidence.

Highly charged

The imposition of the loan charge has been highly controversial and has arguably driven some people to suicide. HMRC and Treasury officials have been accused of manipulating facts in order to justify their actions in respect of the loan charge. Whilst lobby groups have been relentless in their campaigning, pursuing certain Treasury Ministers and anyone who doesn’t condemn the loan charge on twitter.  

The Loan Charge All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has conducted its own inquiry into the loan charge which reviewed a large body of evidence collected from hundreds of affected taxpayers and from HMRC.

In response to the Morse review announcement the Loan Charge APPG has written to the Chancellor demanding that it must be genuinely independent of HMRC and the Treasury. Leading barrister Keith Gordon is also troubled that the review will be staffed by HMRC and HM Treasury civil servants, which could lead to a perceived conflict of interests given that HMRC and HM Treasury are likely to come in for a lot of criticism.

No suspension

The APPG has also asked for all settlement activity (tax agreements with HMRC), enforcement and penalties to be suspended pending the outcome of the loan charge review and the implementation of the recommendations. However, that is not going to happen.

HMRC has made it clear that taxpayers who have agreed a settlement with HMRC and are paying the tax due by instalments should carry on making those payments. Those who provided information to HMRC before 5 April 2019, but have yet to reach a settlement can continue with the settlement process or wait for the outcome of the review.

Those who have decided not to pay tax on their disguised remuneration loans and are instead due to pay the loan charge need to provide information to HMRC about their outstanding loans by 30 September 2019.

A brief history   

The loan charge was designed to encourage taxpayers to pay income tax, national insurance and interest which HMRC believes to be due on loans they received in years going back to 1999. HMRC refers to those loans as “disguised remuneration” on the basis that they were never designed to be repaid, and hence the loaned amount should be taxed as if it was salary paid in the year it was provided.

Many taxpayers did not agree with HMRC’s view of the loans, and if they did agree they believed that the employer should be liable for the tax and NIC on the loan, rather than the individual. Arguments ground though the courts and in some cases HMRC did not act quickly enough to challenge the tax treatment before tax years were closed to enquiries.      

Sledgehammer

The loan charge was proposed in the 2016 Budget to close down all the arguments about disguised remuneration, one flavour of which is contractors’ loans. All taxpayers who had not agreed their tax liabilities in respect of disguised remuneration loans by 5 April 2019 would have to pay the loan charge imposed at that date.

The loan charge taxes all outstanding loans as if the amounts were received as salary in 2018/19. The professional accounting bodies, including ICAEW, raised strong objections to the draft law, pointing out that taxpayers would become insolvent. However, the law was passed after the 2017 general election in the second Finance Act for that year.

Replies (46)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Lone Wolf
By Lone_Wolf
12th Sep 2019 11:51

Justin in 3, 2, 1...

Thanks (2)
Replying to Lone_Wolf:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
12th Sep 2019 14:51

I just knew someone would say that!

This is just about the only good thing BJ has done (not that it will amount to much, as the review is of course limited and controlled by the powers that be as KG says).

I'm all for considering sensible counter-arguments to justify this charge, but this in The Tax Journal is clearly wrong, since the corollary is that all tax avoidance planning that has otherwise worked should also be blocked 20 years retrospectively (i.e. why single out this planning for such extreme & unprecedentedly harsh treatment, especially as it was perfectly legal at the time and HMRC did nothing about it (legislatively at least) for well over a decade?).

https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/in-defence-of-the-outstanding-loan-c...

That said, perhaps SJ has a vested interest here? https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/interesting-re-the-new-chanc...

Cleary this review would not happen in the 1st place unless this planning was perfectly legal at the time - a point which Aweb loan charge muppets do not understand. (Cue loan charge muppets!)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By justsotax
12th Sep 2019 15:22

takes one to know one I guess...

who said it was illegal....loan is repayable....loan gets repaid....sorted.

it really is that simple...….even a muppet could understand that.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
12th Sep 2019 15:35

Justin Bryant wrote:

Cleary this review would not happen in the 1st place unless this planning was perfectly legal at the time

Nonsense - the remit of the review is not to consider the legality of the planning, it's about whether or not the loan charge is the appropriate means of collecting the tax.
Thanks (1)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
12th Sep 2019 15:54

Great! At long last you accept it was legal at the time. Hoorah!

Now please kindly explain how it can be justified to apply 20 year retrospective tax legislation only to this planning (that you accept was perfectly legal at the time) and not other (egregious) tax avoidance planning (that was nonetheless legal at the time and also worked due to HMRC missing the assessment deadline or otherwise). I doubt you or HMRC have an adequate answer to that one i.e. what possible justification is there for such egregious schemes (of which there are very many with £billions at stake) not getting the same treatment?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
12th Sep 2019 16:21

It really is quite incredible how you can infer from my statement that I have accepted that the planning was legal. I said no such thing. Merely that the legality (or otherwise) is irrelevant - the review is not to consider the legality (or otherwise) of the planning, but to consider the appropriateness of the means of collecting the tax.

I didn't think that the words in brackets were necessary but clearly some folks need things spelled out for them. Your difficulty in comprehension goes a long way to explain your propensity for citing cases that are of no relevance to the matter in hand.

And as I said elsewhere - re your complaint that other failed tax planning is not treated similarly - be careful what you wish for.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Sep 2019 16:44

Isnt the whole point of HMRC's approach that they don't need to consider if the original planning worked or not.

They are just taxing the still outstanding loan.

OR very generously giving you the option to be taxed as if the original loan was income.

The main issues are working out who has been mislead by poor advice, and who are just chancers knowing full well that they might get whacked in the future, and are now crying tears for having been out maneuvered by the tax man.

Thanks (1)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
12th Sep 2019 17:54

The fact that the planning worked (absent the loan charge) is the very reason for the loan charge in the 1st place!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
12th Sep 2019 18:07

You have an odd interpretation of planning that worked.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
13th Sep 2019 10:13

@Justin,

We seem to agree for once on this one.

if the schemes worked, then they have deferred the tax.

What it does not do is magic the tax all away for ever.

So if you explained these schemes as a DEFERRAL of tax, pointing out the loan will need to be repaid, bringing it into charge, and indeed the o/s loan could easily by taxed in the future, as we did, then you are fine, and have properly advised your clients of the risks.

If you sold these schemes as an absolute removal of the tax charge, then you badly misadvised your clients on a key risk of such schemes and would do better spending time with your insurers than bleating how jolly unfair all of this is.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
12th Sep 2019 17:59

In that case you clearly do not know what you are talking about (as usual) and (as expected) you have dodged my other point (like the good muppet you are) so I will end there.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
12th Sep 2019 18:12

For the hard of understanding:

“Morse will consider whether or not the loan charge is the right way to collect tax due from the use of disguised remuneration schemes (including contractors loans)”

And I didn’t dodge the other point - it isn’t relevant to the point I was making.

But I understand that there’s no sense in trying to have anything like a reasonable discussion with you as you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong, trying instead to cover up your shortcomings with kindergarten insults. Really, your nose is wedged so far up your own backside you can probably smell fresh air.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Adam12345
12th Sep 2019 18:55

That's my experience with Justin. It seems his opinion is final and no one else is allowed to disagree with him.

The elephant in the room with loan schemes is that the loan charge could've been avoided by repaying the loans, after all, isn't that what you're supposed to do with loans eventually? All they were doing is kicking the can down the road and now they have come to the end of that road, it is everyone's fault but theirs!

The settlement terms could be amended so that they are more realistic and I am sure this review will look at that.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
Lone Wolf
By Lone_Wolf
13th Sep 2019 09:38

Wilson Philips wrote:
Really, your nose is wedged so far up your own backside you can probably smell fresh air.

With the amount of c.rap that comes out his mouth, I very much doubt it'd be fresh air he smells.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By SteLacca
13th Sep 2019 08:32

I don't usually bother to take issue with your interpretation of the law (and right now, I'm talking pre-loan charge), but I am curious. Do you believe for one minute that if someone makes a financial gain (whatever name you call it) that is, betting or otherwise explicitely excluded, a permanent gain, they should be exempt from tax on that gain?

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteLacca:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
12th Sep 2019 21:49

I think you need to qualify your question. I can think of plenty of instances of permanent financial gain that are legitimately exempt from tax.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
By SteLacca
13th Sep 2019 08:32

Modified to clarify.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By meadowsaw227
13th Sep 2019 10:47

All they need to do is pay the bl00dy loans back , sorted >

Thanks (2)
avatar
By whitevanman
12th Sep 2019 22:11

I usually try to avoid agreeing with anyone on these discussions, so in the same spirit;
I think one has to accept for the time being that the scheme users have done nothing illegal ( yes, I know the loans are not real etc etc, but the problem is in proving a case). The question for me however is more whether the schemes actually succeed in their aims (do they work?).
At the moment we are told there are over 50,000 users and as I have pointed out elsewhere, it would take more than 30 years for all those cases to be litigated (and no other cases could be taken in that time).
So, faced with that problem, it is not about right and wrong (as such) but about getting finality.
I don't wish to put words in anyone's mouth but if I was Chancellor I might be inclined to say enough is enough, we will never get things resolved in the normal way, so I will put a charge in place that safeguards the exchequer. That looks very much like what has been done.
The sad thing is this review will be "wrong" whatever the decision. The MPs should have scrutinised matters fully before they agreed to bring in the measure. Having another review now when the law has already come into effect will only cause new problems. Also, there is no saying the government (whoever that may be) will actually do anything when the report is submitted. Who knows what the state of British politics will be come December?
Still, it gives us something to do other than the crossword.

Thanks (2)
Replying to whitevanman:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
13th Sep 2019 07:25

A measured and well-considered comment - much more so than anything that Mr Bryant has contributed to the subject.

For avoidance of doubt, I have never commented on the legality (or otherwise) of the planning - I am not a court judge so it would be inappropriate for me to do so. The issue is about the fairness of the method of collecting the tax and whether it is fair to go back 20 years. On the latter point, I do not consider it to be unfair. Justin bleats on and on about it being unfair because other failed tax planning schemes are not subject to the same 20-year rule. I'll say it once again - he of all people needs to be careful of what he wishes for.

Thanks (0)
Replying to whitevanman:
avatar
By HMRCVictim
13th Sep 2019 07:25

MPs should have scrutinised the law prior to enacting it, yes. But if you look at the history, you will find that there has been a systemic campaign of misinformation and propaganda from HMRC and and the Treasury around this. They didn’t perform a proper impact assessment, they performed a fake consultation and they kept evidence from MPs until the last minute before rushing the law through the committee stage “in record time” (direct quote from Mel Stride, the responsible Treasury Minister at the time) over the objections of MPs.

Since then, the Treasury have sought to squash any attempts by MPs or Peers to re-examine this legislation. The refused to cooperate with two separate Parliamentary inquiries. They successfully stopped an amendment to the 2018 Finance Bill which would have repealed the Loan Charge from being debated. They did not perform a full review that MPs called for in January 2019. They ignored entirely a later vote in April 2019 by the House of Commons where the view of the House was established that the Loan Charge should be delayed and and an independent review started. HMRC and HMRC have actively lobbied for their own agenda at every point along the way. This is particularly worrying in the case of HMRC, who are supposed to simply administer the tax system (which they failed to do properly in this case). Why are HMRC writing letters to MPs, unsolicited, asking them to stop objecting to a government policy?

HMRC are out of control and this is first time that the British people have said “enough!”. It’s a credit to our democracy that MPs and Peers have been prepared to take up the fight even if they know that there might be a few bad headlines as a result. I have the deepest respect for the likes of Stephen Lloyd, Sir Ed Davey, Ruth Cadbury, Ross Thomson, David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith, Dominic Grieve QC, Sammy Wilson and Jim Fitzpatrick. They don’t agree on other matters, but they are working together on this issue on behalf of their constituents and because they understand that the Loan Charge is wrong.

Thanks (0)
Replying to HMRCVictim:
avatar
By whitevanman
13th Sep 2019 13:01

As a master of stating the bleeding obvious, this subject has attracted a whole range of opinion. Take just the last 2 posts, Wilson doesn't feel it unfair but (as I am also very insightful) I feel you do.
Among those with a professional interest in tax (at least those on AWEB) the majority seem to consider the schemes were "wrong" and the users have brought it on themselves. There are a whole range of views about the measure chosen however and that is what the latest review is supposed to be about.
I am afraid I don't share your views of our MPs and what they say. It seems to me there are very many who jump on whatever bandwagon is getting publicity at the time and to justify their apparent change of heart will always say they were duped etc (think Brexit).
Again showing my incredible insight, I would suggest that if you asked the 50,000 users of these schemes, almost 100%would disagree with the measure. Conversely, if you gave some basic facts to and asked the remaining 40 million or so adults, the overwhelming majority would fall closer to Wilson's view.
The problem seems to be that as with so many other things, the noisy minority get far too much publicity whilst the silent majority are ignored.
At least one of the things the review is asked to consider is the fairness to the other 99.8% of taxpayers and we can only hope that happens.
You (no doubt also being insightful) probably conclude that I am of the same opinion as Wilson and you would not be wholly wrong. I do however have some sympathy with a small minority of users. The majority have knowingly used these schemes and in some cases, numerous iterations thereof, over the last 20 years and more. They deserve all they get.
There are however a small, minority who had an employment but were then forced into some form of self-employment which pushed them into the hands of agencies, accountants, promoters and others who have made huge profits from touting these schemes and others. The worker doesn't really understand what they are getting into and will often pay as much in fees as the tax saved. The winners are the end users (who avoid the responsibilities of an employer) and the"touts".
The sad thing is that one cannot legislate to target only those whose actions you might disagree with. Also sad is the fact that little if anything can be / is done about the "touts" and end users.
It would perhaps be good if a review could be set up to look at the roles each of these play and whether some suitable response can be put in place. But that will never happen.
My final comment on the subject concerns the role of HMT and HMRC. I would not support anyone who deliberately misleads or dissembles (oh dear we are back to MPs). I would however wish to see the evidence (not the mere assertion of people however"eminent") that this has happened.
I certainly see nothing wrong with these departments providing the secretariat for the review. What matters is that the reviewer is given access to all he requests (assuming it exists) and is then able to give a properly considered report. At least then we may not have further requests for another review etc etc and we can all proceed in the knowledge that the law (whether or not changed) is the law.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By justsotax
13th Sep 2019 09:30

The trouble with all of this is that at no stage I have ever heard anybody affected by it accept that the way the scheme works is that the 'loan' is never repaid....that's why they work!

We can then discuss the somewhat mischevious ways the Revenue seek to collect what they think is due, the way they have done it, the impact on those they are collecting from and the lack of action against those misselling such schemes.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Rgab1947
13th Sep 2019 10:24

Leaving aside all the arguments as to legality etc. etc. I have issue as follows with it;

1. HMRC had 20 years to sort it. They did not.
2. Many contractors have no hope in ever repaying and the solution for them is to declare bankruptcy. Is that for the overall society's benefit. Doubt it.
3. Anything which starts people committing suicide is a bad thing. Full stop.

Do note the contractors were not all sharks. They were in many instances naive, not super earners and readily following advice from experts. Who argues with an expert?

Now who gets punished? The advisors? No!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Rgab1947:
avatar
By meadowsaw227
13th Sep 2019 10:46

I argued with the experts and actively discouraged any client stupid to enter the "loans" regime and dis engaged any client who actually did it .
Therefore I have no clients who can not to PAY the loans back

Thanks (2)
Replying to Rgab1947:
avatar
By justsotax
13th Sep 2019 12:23

My only issue was.....it was a loan.....and loans are repayable....it starts and ends there.....

Thanks (0)
Replying to justsotax:
avatar
By whitevanman
13th Sep 2019 13:33

Quite right but what if the loan is to be "repaid" when the earner dies? It then reduces the estate for IHT. The money, which is usually in a sub-trust, then passes to the family with no prospect of any tax ever being paid.
The schemes rely on the fact that you cannot prove the loans are a "sham" ( even if you think they are) and so the law and tax charge follows.
In the circumstances, which probably could not be foreseen 20 years ago having developed through the courts rather slowly, is it surprising the chancellor brought forward the loan charge?

Thanks (0)
Replying to whitevanman:
avatar
By justsotax
13th Sep 2019 14:27

lets be clear....they are a sham.

Thanks (1)
Replying to justsotax:
avatar
By whitevanman
13th Sep 2019 15:33

HMRC have never taken the point and no court has ever suggested they are a sham. Simple point, prove it!

Thanks (0)
Replying to justsotax:
avatar
By whitevanman
13th Sep 2019 16:01

HMRC have never taken the point and no court has ever suggested they are a sham. Simple point, prove it!

Thanks (0)
Replying to whitevanman:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
13th Sep 2019 16:48

If they are not a sham why did you talk about the loans being "repaid" on death instead of just being repaid on death? Is it because, since you describe the money as just passing on without repaying the loan, that they won't be repaid on death either?

Either the loans are repayable or they aren't. If they aren't repayable then they are a sham. There is no such thing as "repayable" loans.

Thanks (0)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By whitevanman
13th Sep 2019 18:24

In the ordinary course the individual doesn't have the readies to repay. When the poor soul dies it is a debt owed by his / her estate the beneficiaries of which are usually the same as the beneficiaries under the family sub-trust. So, I would say there is no movement of actual money but the paperwork will reflect repayment and subsequent appointment of funds to the beneficiary.
Hence, the loans are (legally at least) repayable but the man on the Clapham omnibus would probably not agree.
As I have said proving the arrangements are a "sham" would be extremely difficult which, I suggest, is why HMRC has never argued them to be such and why no judge has ever suggested they might be.

Thanks (1)
Replying to whitevanman:
avatar
By Adam12345
13th Sep 2019 20:23

Definition of Sham: 'a thing that is not what it is purported to be.'

Thanks (0)
Replying to Adam12345:
avatar
By whitevanman
13th Sep 2019 21:00

The legal definition for these purposes is a little different. To succeed in arguing "sham" you have to show that the paperwork shows something other than what the parties have agreed / actually do.
In these cases they have agreed certain terms for the loan and that is what the paperwork shows. So not a "sham".
The thing is that even where there are terms for repayment, they may fall under the type of arrangements I referred to previously or there is an understanding that actual repayment (in the sense of money discharging the debt) will never be sought / take place. So for example, loan 1 is repaid by being rolled over into loan 2.
As I have said, the problem is that in all of this you will find it near impossible to show "sham" and that is why (i assume) it has never been argued.

Thanks (0)
Replying to whitevanman:
avatar
By Adam12345
14th Sep 2019 08:13

Now you're just making stuff up to try and convince yourself otherwise.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Adam12345:
avatar
By whitevanman
14th Sep 2019 09:16

Sorry but if you are not familiar with the concept I suggest you spend some time reading the Ramsay and other cases where you may discern the development of the purposive construction of legislation and the judicial comment on sham. Probably serve you better than posting drivel on here.

Thanks (0)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By Payroll Pete
14th Sep 2019 10:04

From what I've seen HMRC have failed to prove that tax is due (from the employee) in every case they've taken to court.

They issued guidance in 2010 stating the loans don't work - I don't see why they didn't introduce legislation making them taxable then.
The schemes would have stopped, contractors would have used PSCs and all due tax would have been collected.

Thanks (0)
Replying to justsotax:
avatar
By Exfoliate
14th Sep 2019 15:22

Not in all cases Justsotax

In mine the loan's been repaid in full (November 2017) and interest has been paid (in cash) but the principle hasn't been repaid in cash because it's all tied up in property which has been systematically destroyed by Brexit. The assignment of assets worth far more than the original loan is NOT accepted by HMRC as a form of repayment.

Do HMRC wish to discuss - the hell they do !!!!!!!!! So as you see repaying loans is often more difficult than you're rather simplistic statement.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Exfoliate:
avatar
By justsotax
16th Sep 2019 13:57

...so they have or haven't been repaid...?! do you mean they invested the money in an investment which has risk attached....gave that asset in lieu of the loan but its value is such that the loan hasn't been fully settled? and....

Thanks (0)
Jennifer Adams
By Jennifer Adams
13th Sep 2019 18:16

Can I just give my 'twopennyworth'? Showing my age here!!

I have a client for whom this has been very distressing.

Two separate agencies told her that she couldnt work unless she set up a limited company.
It wasnt until I came along at the end of the year that I saw one of these 'loans' on her payslips.

It has been hell trying to get HMRC to agree to the 'offer' (or rather they told us what to put on the 'offer' declaration.
Once I worked out what it was all about I wrote = no reply. 3 phone calls chasing. They changed the rules and we had to apply online.
Months went by. Client left to work abroad and came back... still months went by.
A year in all. She couldnt pay as she didnt have a reference number specific to the 'loan dept'
All over now and she's paid. She didnt know what she was getting into.
When I queried why it had taken so long I was told that all the depts energies were targeted at the companies but it was the employee who would be picking up the tab.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
16th Sep 2019 14:03

I guess what I am asking is did someone, who was essentially employed, get given a loan that was to be repaid, then fail to repay said loan? too simple?....

Anybody wish to admit that these schemes only work if the individual involved doesn't need to repay the loan....anyone at all.....I don't need the reasons why they haven't or shouldn't need to....just that for the purposes of the scheme it don't work if they have to repay the loan....

Thanks (0)
Replying to justsotax:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
16th Sep 2019 14:45

Potentially yes (the court cases show that some loans were repaid); but more importantly they also work if HMRC are too late to raise an enquiry/DA or raised the wrong kind of enquiry/DA.

This is the real reason for the loan charge in the 1st place and is the real scandal here (i.e. HMRC covering up their own incompetence). IR/HMRC could have easily blocked EBT loan arrangements around 2004/05 but left it all far too late - giving advisors and taxpayers the view that this was all fine based on the various court cases at that earlier time. So this scandal is about HMRC trying to cover up their double incompetence here (and anyone who disagrees with that is talking double incontinence).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By justsotax
16th Sep 2019 16:32

and there lies the problem....I don't think you will find many arguing with the incompetence of the Revenue (if any...haven't seen any such statements)….

the real scandal is that the primary (and in most case only) reason for entering this type of scheme was to avoid tax that the individual would have ordinarily paid. Setting it out as a loan (rather than income/salary etc)....but in the vast majority of cases one which was/is not repayable.

A classic case of someone trying to suggest that two wrongs do indeed make a right.....erm they don't!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By whitevanman
16th Sep 2019 17:54

I certainly wouldn't seek to defend HMRC but I suspect the real reason for the loan charge is to do with the number of cases and schemes, the time taken to litigate and the problems of collection even when cases are settled. Further, have promoters stopped selling the schemes with all the issues they raise? I doubt it. The loan charge may block certain types of scheme but how long before they have something that (they argue) gets around it?
I have seen one or two comments about cases where there are no enquiries etc but I do wonder about the facts and numbers. For example, does anyone have a case where HMRC is seeking tax in respect of a loan made say 10 years ago and where there is no open enquiry?
I am not suggesting there aren't any but it would be a "chicken and egg" question.
Have HMRC identified cases since the loan charge was introduced (because they are now caught) or did they already have them "in sight" and that is why the legislation was framed as it is? I don't think either of us can answer that (and presumably no-one would have told parliament) so it really would be a matter of looking at the number of cases of this type and then drawing an inference.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
16th Sep 2019 21:29

Justin Bryant wrote:
but more importantly they also work if HMRC are too late to raise an enquiry/DA or raised the wrong kind of enquiry/DA.

A very odd, nay, absurd view.

“I’ve got a scheme that’ll save you a bundle of tax.”

“Does it work?”

“Of course it does - but only if HMRC screw up.”

There’s a difference between a legitimate scheme that works and one that relies on HMRC incompetence for success.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
17th Sep 2019 09:58

Justin, perhaps rather than trying to corral us minions behind your campaign against the Revenue for their 'unfair' and 'retrospective' actions, why not get those tax barristers who backed these schemes in the first place...….

Thanks (1)