Seeing the flurry of ministers and ex-ministers extolling their virtues and those of colleagues, I thought I would revisit an issue.
1/10 It will be remembered that the former FST (@meljstride) was shoe-horned into chairing the Treasury Select Committee @CommonsTreasury, with his appointment apparently actively supported by government whips.
2/10

This revelation raises a number of interesting points.
1. It shows that HMRC were very conscious that their new found use of s684(7A) might be struck down by the courts.
1/5

https://twitter.com/Stephen41792571/status/1543994811262406660

2. Indeed, after lying unused on the statute books for 15 years, the guidance as to its use kept changing over the next two or so years.
2/5

One of the advantages of these latest disclosures is that it caused me to look back at a Subject Access Request I made to HMRC in 2020.
1/7

https://twitter.com/LCAG_2019/status/1542158606967226374

When HMRC finally complied, they gave me a long list of snippets where I had been cited in internal despatches.
2/7

It has been of some interest to see a FOIA request seeking information about my meeting back in 2019 with @Jesse_Norman , then the FST, about the loan charge. He was newly in post and claimed to want to resolve the controversies.
1/15 The material disclosed will of course be of interest to those who will want to know what I said. In fact, I was asked on 14 June by the Treasury if I objected to disclosure. I responded the same day to say that I didn't object. I have nothing to hide.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meetin…
2/15

I make the following brief reflections on the Hoey proceedings.
They reflect solely my perception of the oral arguments and should not be taken as any comment on what the law actually says/means.
In short, I am pessimistic about Mr Hoey’s chances of success.
1/9
#hoey It must be remembered that there are a number of different issues – ultimately representing HMRC’s different lines of attack.
2/9

I have seen yet more FOIA disclosures about the loan charge.
whatdotheyknow.com/request/emails…
1/13 This reference to “covering our backs” is rather unfortunate.
Unfortunately, the full range of strategies has been redacted. But it is interesting to see that HMRC have concerns about defining what is meant by “fair disclosure” by taxpayers.
2/13

Having digested the latest FOIA disclosures, I have a theory.
It might well be totally contradicted by other materials or just otherwise plain wrong. But, for the time being, it is what I believe. More than willing to be corrected (as always).
1/5 My thesis is that the loan charge was devised within the anti-avoidance team.
I do not believe that Jim Harra was responsible for its genesis or development.
I believe he is fundamentally opposed to the loan charge as a concept.
2/5

I have eventually had a chance to look through the recent FOIA disclosures.
whatdotheyknow.com/request/emails…
I have set out some comments in the tweets that follow. Some comments have already been made by me and by others. I’m sure this e-mail has been disclosed before in another context.
But it is worth remembering that Jim Harra recognised as “principled” the main objection to the loan charge – being its retrospection and its giving HMRC a second bite of the cherry.

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questi…
The FST’s response is carefully worded but is liable to be misunderstood.
1/4

https://twitter.com/Mylerdoo/status/1474110405488390147

Although statute provides that the employee is liable for income tax on employment income (s13), elsewhere in the Act (s684) it is made clear that the PAYE regs “have effect despite anything in the Income Tax Acts”.
2/4

Some interesting lines from the Government and its supporters today.
My question is whether they will apply these same standards to taxpayers who were duped into joining loan schemes and have been punished with the loan charge.
1/6 From Jacob Rees-Mogg @Jacob_Rees_Mogg :
Justice must be done … there must be an appeals process
2/6

The latest disclosures relate to a request for meta-data. This is information that relates to the handling of an FOIA request, and not merely the original underlying information.
This final set of tweets shows a memo prepared in response to a request.
1/15 Senior officials had hoped to and continued to withhold data.

2/15

This is a draft memo to the FST (by then Jesse N).
Interesting that the “retrospection” challenge was reworded.
1/11 Again, this is one of the causes of dissonance.
HMRC’s “belief” is based on experience of dealing with the wealthy tax avoiders and presumably very little action taken in relation to contractors for so many years.
2/11

Comment HJ1 is very revealing and probably lies at the heart of the disonance in this debate. Tax pros usually consider Net pay to be TAXABLE SALARY - TAX - NI (i.e. fees disregarded).
Normal people consider NET pay to be what ends up in the pocket (i.e. fees taken into account). Ditto re HJ3. The original wording was full of jargon that many in the tax world just do not realise is meaningless to normal people.
At least, on this occasion, HJ recognised the position from the perspective of the tax-muggle.

I have just read what HMRC told MPs about the loan charge in their monthly digest in January 2019. It is plain wrong.
1/5 If X owes Y some money, Y has the right to go to Court to enforce the debt against X.
No new legislation is needed to enable Y to do this.

2/5

I have just seen a response to a recent FOIA request I made to FOIA. It covers four areas which I shall address separately:
1/4 1.Interestingly, it asserts in the context of the use of non governmental lines of electronic communication "is not permitted when conducting government business. Further, the use of non-government email accounts to discuss government business is not allowed".
NB @gem_abbott
2/4

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

https://twitter.com/keithmgordon/status/1427919604089769984

More acknowledgement of HMRC’s delays (particularly pre-2009)

26/33

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 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

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

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

https://twitter.com/steve_packham/status/1384967680441167873

Perhaps this is the nub of the issue: HMRC see contractors as the enemy and the loan charge was just one part of this battle.

2/6

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