mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 30, 2017 21:50:08 GMT
How do you guys work out your interest income for a month? Surely I am not alone in recording, at the end of each month, the interest earned from each platform during that month? For AC I used to go to the tax statement and filter from the start of the month to the end of the month. That possibility is now removed. Can't you just use the new daily balance statements. Balanced on last of current month minus balance on the last day of previous month plus/minus any credits/withdrawals to from platform equals interest. Or is that too obvious? (I am now perturbed that the values I get using your method are all about £5 to £15 different from the values I used to get from the tax statement.) I'm afraid I'm not surprised by this. When I've looked at a daily balance statement, and compared it to a screen shot of my Dashboard taken at midnight, they don't agree. I haven't a clue why not, but something in the AC system appears to be inconsistent.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 30, 2017 22:03:41 GMT
After already filling my 2016/17 tax return I find that I do have default loans now and the amount of interest on the tax certificate is slighlty less than I put on my return. : Do you have the detailed statement info via the CSV file download? If so, what does it show for the date(s) on the entries for the defaults? AIUI, claiming for those losses is optional. So I think you could claim it for 2017/18 if it still isn't been recovered. If it turns out that there is some recovery in 2017/18, you ought to be able to claim for the net loss. Please note, however, that I'm no expert on these matters and certainly not qualified to give opinions, so you'll probably need to get official advice before you do anything.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741 
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Oct 1, 2017 12:32:46 GMT
Good idea but also 'want' my own choice of dates, hopefully will come back soon This. Just do it.
|
|
dave2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 163
|
Post by dave2 on Oct 1, 2017 16:26:42 GMT
One of my loans has been completely "written off" on the AC tax statement, almost 60% of this loan has been recovered already, and the recovery is ongoing. I will not be claiming for this loss against 2016/17 as I have insufficient tax liability to offset it against, I would gain nothing and would be manufacturing a future tax liability on the whole capital amount recovered. As highlighted in the recent Assetz Capital e-mail about the tax statement updates: Well worth reading the e-mail, the linked SAIM12000 document, and considering your own tax position before deciding whether it is beneficial to offset losses. |
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 1, 2017 17:28:41 GMT
I am struggling to understand the values shown on the return, I suspect that I have not understood the handling of loans such as #199, but the default total is much higher than I had expected, so I need to investigate further.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 1, 2017 20:16:22 GMT
Thanks Ilmoro. Not obvious enough for me I'm afraid. I have been hunting around for something as obvious as all the other platforms. But thanks that I can stop hunting around now. (I am now perturbed that the values I get using your method are all about £5 to £15 different from the values I used to get from the tax statement.) Hadnt actually looked at it in detail until now but there is certianly a bug in the MLIA statement, and maybe others, where is miscalculating the loan holdings somewhere. Mine is consistently £8.57 up yet the uninvested cash is correct. Cash, QAA & 30DAA seems correct. Looks like an error has sneaked into the code (might already be under investigation in relation to the odd balance drops people were reporting)
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Oct 1, 2017 22:00:39 GMT
I've dropped AC a note re: Essex Bridging Lender (136), as covered on the tax statement. This was deemed "defaulted" 2015-04-20. However, this was tradable, and I subsequently sold almost all of it in May 2015 - this is essentially "recovered" principal, but it's not accounted for on the statement.
I suspect that loans in this state today would not be tradable; it's so far back, I don't really recall how/why this was tradable after being deemed "irrecoverable".
I now own only a penny or less in this loan, so if I were to declare to HMRC a "loss" of, say, £100 principal as of 2015-04-20, in the knowledge I had since "recovered/sold" £99.99, I think this would be disingenuous (to say the least!).
Addendum: same applies to "Steve D**** (330)" - "defaulted" on 21st March 2017, but I sold 99% out on 28th March 2017....so I don't think I'll be claiming that as a "loss" either.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 2, 2017 0:24:17 GMT
I've dropped AC a note re: Essex Bridging Lender (136), as covered on the tax statement. This was deemed "defaulted" 2015-04-20. However, this was tradable, and I subsequently sold almost all of it in May 2015 - this is essentially "recovered" principal, but it's not accounted for on the statement. I suspect that loans in this state today would not be tradable; it's so far back, I don't really recall how/why this was tradable after being deemed "irrecoverable". I now own only a penny or less in this loan, so if I were to declare to HMRC a "loss" of, say, £100 principal as of 2015-04-20, in the knowledge I had since "recovered/sold" £99.99, I think this would be disingenuous (to say the least!). Addendum: same applies to "Steve D**** (330)" - "defaulted" on 21st March 2017, but I sold 99% out on 28th March 2017....so I don't think I'll be claiming that as a "loss" either. The loan was tradeable because the borrower still being allowed to work to redeem the loan himself and legal recovery procedures hadnt been launched. It would still be tradeable under those circumstances today eg 327 overdue, in default but not in recovery. Loans are only permanently suspended when legal recovery is launched (or AC cant offer lenders a clear statement of facts on what they are buying) Loans that can be sold shouldnt be treated as irrecoverable because they have value (except where the transfer is to a recovery agent required to initiate legal recovery). It also means that as AC have deemed the loan as irrecoverable prior to the sale the purchaser cant claim relief for any loss on the purchase. (have a feeling Leeds Comm will be an issue under that scenario for example) SAIM 12060 My personal non-expert and non advisory opionion is that AC are wrong in the case of 136 as the loan was not irrecoverable except with reference to security as AC were still enabling the borrower to repay the loan and wasnt in legal recovery and had a realisable value through the SM. Furthermore it doesnt tally with AC's own email which says 'For the purposes of the Tax Statement provided by Assetz Capital, loans are deemed to be irrecoverable for tax purposes at the point that formal recovery action is taken.' which isnt the date they have used in the statement (should be July 16). Same applies to 330. That said the HMRC doc is convoluted in its language and seems contradictory at times but at best AC interpretation is making life difficult for lenders to make decisions on loss claims. Same could be said of their 'advice' on cashback which differs from all other platforms and mainstream financial institutions. Of course, 136 has now been fully recovered (well once AC actually get cash/pay it out) so there is no point claiming the 1p either should you be so tempted.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 2, 2017 1:43:54 GMT
I am struggling to understand the values shown on the return, I suspect that I have not understood the handling of loans such as #199, but the default total is much higher than I had expected, so I need to investigate further. : If you haven't already done so, download the CSV file offered for the tax statement. If you open that in Excel (or compatible spreadsheet program) you'll be able to see all the individual components of the totals on the statement, and it might help you understand what AC has done.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Oct 2, 2017 4:49:33 GMT
Its all to complicated ,open to different interpretations and as we are responsible personally for the accuracy of our returns within hmrc rules my wife and me will not be claiming losses now or in the future. Nontax payers, so no gain,just a lot of possible pain ,at least if there are any hmrc questions we can just say its not required to claim losses and we have not, backed by simple screen shot records from AC.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Oct 2, 2017 7:25:07 GMT
AC's new approach is broadly consistent with my interpretation of the legislation and guidance, as posted here: p2pindependentforum.com/post/104652/threadUnfortunately, they have misunderstood the meaning of "irrecoverable but for the security", which is the trigger for treating a loan as irrecoverable. The actual words of the law (s412A(8)) are "In this section “irrecoverable” means irrecoverable other than by legal proceedings or by the exercise of any right granted by way of security for the loan." So "security" is referring to the right, not the asset(s) over which the security is given. As I flagged in a later post p2pindependentforum.com/post/105430/thread, these are two different things. The examples I gave were:
Example 1: Loan to company secured on its debtors. The debtors are assets of the company and you cannot pretend that they don't exist. The company remains obliged to pay you, by realising the debtors itself if necessary. I don't think the existence of the security brings forward the date on which relief can be claimed, relative to a similar loan to an identical company without the security.
Example 2: Loan to company secured on the director's house. Because the house is not an asset of the company, you CAN claim relief if the only way you will recover the loan is by going after the house. To the extent that you are successful you then have to repay the relief.Loans on AC will generally fit example 1. There may be additional security outside of the company (such as a PG) but the primary security is over the company's assets. AC appear to have asked themselves whether the loan would be irrecoverable if the assets over which the security was given did not exist. The answer to that question is invariably no yes, leading to the conclusion that the loan should be treated as irrecoverable as soon as legal recovery commences. The question they should have asked is whether the loan would be irrecoverable if the security over the company's assets did not exist (so that the only way to recover would be by going after any additional security outside of the company). The answer to that question, for loans on AC, will usually be no.To expand/explain further: - "Irrecoverable" means (essentially) wholly irrecoverable.
- I think "treated as irrecoverable" must be interpreted consistently, as "treated as wholly irrecoverable". This is consistent with what AC have done.
- But a loan to a company secured on its assets is unlikely to be wholly irrecoverable (but for legal action or exercise of the security) unless those assets are worthless or there are prior charges or there is some other very particular problem.
So the new tax statements are wrong and I won't be following them. |
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Oct 2, 2017 7:30:16 GMT
And thirded. I do tax statements every month . Me too (Very much) , can I ask for the dates to come back.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 2, 2017 7:44:28 GMT
I guess it was inevitable that, as AC adapted its tax statement to the SAIM 12000 guidelines, there would be a few historic cases that straddled both states (ie. loans that could be deemed "irrecoverable" under SAIM 12000 but were still available for trading for a period after the only obvious legal "trigger date"). However things should be much more straightforward in future; at the point that a loan enters "legal recovery procedures", it must inevitably also be suspended from further trading. That way, lenders won't find themselves buying into or selling out of loans that are already deemed "irrecoverable".
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Oct 2, 2017 8:04:44 GMT
AC's new approach is broadly consistent with my interpretation of the legislation and guidance, as posted here: p2pindependentforum.com/post/104652/threadUnfortunately, they have misunderstood the meaning of "irrecoverable but for the security", which is the trigger for treating a loan as irrecoverable. The actual words of the law (s412A(8)) are "In this section “irrecoverable” means irrecoverable other than by legal proceedings or by the exercise of any right granted by way of security for the loan." So "security" is referring to the right, not the asset(s) over which the security is given. As I flagged in a later post p2pindependentforum.com/post/105430/thread, these are two different things. The examples I gave were:
Example 1: Loan to company secured on its debtors. The debtors are assets of the company and you cannot pretend that they don't exist. The company remains obliged to pay you, by realising the debtors itself if necessary. I don't think the existence of the security brings forward the date on which relief can be claimed, relative to a similar loan to an identical company without the security.
Example 2: Loan to company secured on the director's house. Because the house is not an asset of the company, you CAN claim relief if the only way you will recover the loan is by going after the house. To the extent that you are successful you then have to repay the relief.Loans on AC will generally fit example 1. There may be additional security outside of the company (such as a PG) but the primary security is over the company's assets. AC appear to have asked themselves whether the loan would be irrecoverable if the assets over which the security was given did not exist. The answer to that question is invariably no, leading to the conclusion that the loan should be treated as irrecoverable as soon as legal recovery commences. The question they should have asked is whether the loan would be irrecoverable if the security over the company's assets did not exist (so that the only way to recover would be by going after any additional security outside of the company). The answer to that question, for loans on AC, will usually be no.To expand/explain further: - "Irrecoverable" means (essentially) wholly irrecoverable.
- I think "treated as irrecoverable" must be interpreted consistently, as "treated as wholly irrecoverable". This is consistent with what AC have done.
- But a loan to a company secured on its assets is unlikely to be wholly irrecoverable (but for legal action or exercise of the security) unless those assets are worthless or there are prior charges or there is some other very particular problem.
So the new tax statements are wrong and I won't be following them. Is this a typo? Beware of double negatives!
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 2, 2017 8:22:30 GMT
I am struggling to understand the values shown on the return, I suspect that I have not understood the handling of loans such as #199, but the default total is much higher than I had expected, so I need to investigate further. : If you haven't already done so, download the CSV file offered for the tax statement. If you open that in Excel (or compatible spreadsheet program) you'll be able to see all the individual components of the totals on the statement, and it might help you understand what AC has done. Thanks mikes1531 I downloaded the CSV file as soon as I saw the figures but I need to spend a bit more time with it before I achieve full enlightenment.
|
|
