Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Loan Charge 2019

Tuesday 11 February 2020 · 4 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Of the estimated 50,000 individuals affected by the loan charge, more than 30,000 are expected to benefit from changes.
  • At the Budget, measures will be introduced to crack down on promoters of disguised renumeration schemes.
  • HMRC pursued cases of tax avoidance through disguised renumeration schemes for many years before 2010.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Laurence Robertson Con
Context

The question arises from the Government's response to Sir Amyas Morse's review concerning individuals affected by the loan charge.

Question

How many people will be affected by the 2019 loan charge after the Government have implemented the recommendations of Sir Amyas Morse's review?

Answer from Jesse Norman

Of the estimated 50,000 individuals affected by the loan charge, more than 30,000 are expected to benefit from changes. This includes about 11,000 people who will be taken out of paying altogether and those settled or settling their tax liability with HMRC.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Seema Malhotra Labour (Co-op) Feltham and Heston
Taxation
Context

The MP raises concerns about the clarity of the loan charge for self-employed individuals and proposes changes to address retrospective application.

Question

Will the Financial Secretary do the obvious thing, get rid of all retrospection and apply the loan charge from when the law was clear and applied to everyone, including the self-employed, and clamp down on those who promoted these disguised renumeration schemes?

Answer from Jesse Norman

At the Budget, we will introduce measures to crack down on promoters. However, this is not a retrospective measure; Sir Amyas Morse found that the loan charge was an appropriate response to tax avoidance and suggested December 2010 as the legal date.

Partly answered

Not addressed: request for revision in retrospection

How: This Is Not A Retrospective Measure

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Laurence Robertson Con
Taxation
Context

The MP questions why HMRC did not act earlier if the law was clear since 2010.

Question

But even 2010 is 10 years ago, so if the law was clear then, as the report suggests, why did HMRC not act then? Surely this matter is its responsibility.

Answer from Jesse Norman

HMRC pursued these cases quite vigorously. Sir Amyas found that the law was clear then, and HMRC believed people would accommodate it. It has also been pursuing those avoiding tax through disguised renumeration schemes for many years before 2010.

Partly answered

Not addressed: reason for delayed action by HMRC

How: Hmrc Pursued These Cases Quite Vigorously

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Ruth Cadbury Lab Brentford and Isleworth
Taxation
Context

A constituent is unsure about their position post-loan charge review despite Treasury's acceptance of Sir Amyas Morse's recommendations.

Question

The Treasury has accepted some of Sir Amyas Morse's recommendations, but there is confusion about some of them. A constituent got caught in a disguised renumeration scheme before 2010 and remains unsure if they are in the clear.

Answer from Jesse Norman

We accepted all but one of Sir Amyas's recommendations, rejecting it as already well-handled within the system. If there is a specific concern, the MP can raise it with tax commissioners or me anonymously.

Partly answered

Not addressed: position for those affected pre-2010

How: We Accepted All But One Recommendation, Issue Was Already Being Handled

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)