Annex A provides an interesting summary of the history of these schemes, emphasising the expansion to contractor loans in about 2004 (previously said to be 2005/06).
25/33
More acknowledgement of HMRC’s delays (particularly pre-2009)
26/33
And here we see why the position WAS NOT CLEAR after the 2011 changes.
27/33
Annex B deals with settlement terms
28/33
Annex C summarises how HMRC publicised their views.
A lack of any clear communication with the taxpayers involved until 2014 (when just 11000 taxpayers were written to).
29/33
Annex D on taxpayer safeguards
30/33
Annex D continued
31/33
Annex E shows that the majority of people affected are indeed contractors.
32/33
Annex F shows the pro-HMRC feedback gleaned from media outlets (rather than the criticism levelled against the loan charge policy).
33/33
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The recent FOIA disclosures led to some further requests by me. I have now had the results of those requests.
1/33
HMRC have not actually disclosed the suspicious e-mail. But I can live without it. What the disclosures did reveal however is that HMRC send a monthly bulletin to MPs.
I wonder whether this communication exercise explains the reticence experienced with some MPs.
2/33
The draft anti-avoidance paper also makes interesting reading.
This, for example, shows the extent (as at January 2019) of HMRC’s action against promoters – relatively little action taken against promoters of loan arrangements.
3/33
The latest disclosure of an HMRC briefing note provided to the then FST in July 2019 makes for some more chilling reading. whatdotheyknow.com/request/776882…
It appears that HMRC did not like the previous draft of the standard letter being sent to all MPs.
1/17
Apparently different MPs (and their constituents) had different concerns and HMRC recognised that a meaningful standard response would be difficult to draft.
2/17
It was possible that, following a meeting with the APPG, major reforms were going to be announced. However, HMRC argued that that might reduce the money coming into the Treasury and therefore any such change would need further consideration.
3/17
Further thoughts on yesterday’s revelations:
It should be noted that HMRC have not disclosed all information requested. They have taken the view that some information can be withheld “in the public interest”.
1/11
It is entirely possible that the exemption has been validly claimed on this occasion. However, given that trust in HMRC is so low, a greater element of candour might have been appropriate.
But it seems that candour is not the current Modus Operandi.
2/11
It seems that HMRC prepared two documents in April 2019 to discuss the loan charge – one was for internal consumption only and the other for publication.
But HMRC’s comments on the drafts are interesting.
3/11
I've been off radar all day and come home to this bomb shell. I shall digest it properly tomorrow, but a few points have jumped out to me.
Warning: I have not read the entire disclosure yet. 1/6
The Upper Tribunal (“UT”) has given its decision in Hoey.
It will be uploaded to gov.uk/tax-and-chance… probably in the next couple of days.
1/11
It is interesting to see that after 3 days of oral argument, written submissions were made by the parties on eleven subsequent occasions. I am not saying that this is unprecedented but I have never before seen a case with so many iterations of post-hearing submissions.
2/11
On the question as to whether the taxpayer can argue the existence of a PAYE credit, HMRC won. In other words, the UT held that this argument cannot be considered by the Tribunals, but must be saved up until HMRC start collection proceedings in the County Court.
3/11