Still gathering requirements...
Quite a few of the EBT trustees would periodically settle the loans stating that they had been made in a devaluing currency and could now be paid off for very small sums.
Originally Posted by TykeMerc
I still don't understand why somebody saying "no, you can live and work in the UK but be taxed in the IOM at 0% and because you can't be taxed on the money twice, HMRC won't be able to take any cash from you" is somehow more sophisticated and "believable" than somebody saying "no, you can live and work in the UK but because the bulk of your fees are returned to you as a commercial loan you don't have to pay tax on it because it isn't income". When viewed with hindsight, perhaps it could be said that both approaches were stretching the point, but were simply using existing loopholes.
Both approaches relied on applying tax law in a specific way - both were legal structures but in the BN66 case, HMRC said they had stated the rules previously and were "clarifying" the position in 2008. In the case of EBT, the new law comes into effect in April 11 but with the anti-forestalling announcement it has effect from 09/12/2010.
This doesn't mean that there will be no retrospection with EBT. It merely means that there has been no official attempt by HMRC to enforce retrospection as there was no previous law to "clarify". I can, however, just picture the discussions between Hector and the unfortunate consultants when the matter is raised during an investigation. It will be a case of "guilty until you prove yourself innocent" and that could be tricky because of Hector's "aggressive avoidance" approach.