BIG GROUP

[Fred Bloggs]

You, could of course, just call them and ask?

[regron]

Guys can I just confirm the joining process, the first post of this thread say;

'membership is £10 a month for 60 months (perhaps less/more). Alternatively pay £500 day 1 and then nothing until month 61.'

joining link says;

'WTT Big Group costs £200 (inc VAT) to join following which a monthly fee of £18 (inc VAT) applies. A resolution fee of £1500 + VAT will also be applicable at the point you decide to join any offered settlement strategy.'

Just want some clarification on if this is the same group to join with modified costs and will there be any further costs envisaged after ?

Also will this be someone representing me going forward and responding to any HMRC letters I get onwards ? or is this still down to me and this group is just for the resolution of the wider picture I may benefit from.

Just want to join and get the details right. Thanks

Probably better and easier if you give them a call to be honest. That way you can present them with your own, personal circumstances and see what they advise.

[webberg]

The joining fee is £200 and the monthly cost £18, both VAT inclusive.

The pricing on the very early posts (impressed you've gone back that far) was largely speculative.

[webberg]

Apologies for slight delay but APN templates - historic and current - are now available free to all BG members.

[webberg]

There was a comment made on another (now closed) thread which was seeking information about the extent to which BG will or will not take legal action.

I think the poster has conflated various issues and then made an assumption that is incorrect.

For clarity.

Will BG litigate the underlying liability of individuals? Preferably not. We prefer to discuss and negotiate but it may in due course become necessary to support another litigation or launch our own.

Will BG litigate issues such as discovery, closed years, reopening of settlements? Almost certainly yes.

Will BG litigate the 2019 tax charge? It depends on how many members want to fund that. If enough are interested and we consider that there is value to be had, then yes.

I hope this is straightforward.

Generally guys, I'd rather you asked questions of us about BG and not speak to people who may not be in full possession of the facts.

[RajaStyle]

At least there is a couple of companies looking after their ex clients and paying for litigation. Well done AML, shame I joined the wrong one who couldn't run away fast enough and leave us contractors with the mess.

https://ww w.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/mic...avoidance.html

"AML established structures for hard-working contractors and not millionaire celebrities or high net-worth individuals which was fully compliant with U.K. law. When the legislation changed in 2011 these structures subsequently ceased," the spokesman told CNBC in an email.
"HMRC unfairly issued APNs (accelerated payment notices) in a bid to retrospectively punish our clients and it was decided that this decision would be challenged at a judicial review."
The spokesman added: "Other companies have chosen to turn their backs on clients who offered such structures but we decided to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds financing legal action to defend the rights of individuals from unwarranted and unjust HMRC demands and will continue to do so, in this respect the judgement is being appealed."

[RajaStyle]

https://ww w.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/mic...avoidance.html

[Clairol]

Following on

Is there a website where I can follow the appeal progress?

At least there is a couple of companies looking after their ex clients and paying for litigation. Well done AML, shame I joined the wrong one who couldn't run away fast enough and leave us contractors with the mess.

https://ww w.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/mic...avoidance.html

"AML established structures for hard-working contractors and not millionaire celebrities or high net-worth individuals which was fully compliant with U.K. law. When the legislation changed in 2011 these structures subsequently ceased," the spokesman told CNBC in an email.
"HMRC unfairly issued APNs (accelerated payment notices) in a bid to retrospectively punish our clients and it was decided that this decision would be challenged at a judicial review."
The spokesman added: "Other companies have chosen to turn their backs on clients who offered such structures but we decided to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds financing legal action to defend the rights of individuals from unwarranted and unjust HMRC demands and will continue to do so, in this respect the judgement is being appealed."

[webberg]

Just bear in mind that the source of the story on CNBC and the source of the press release is hardly unbiased.

I would agree that AML has stood its ground and is to be applauded.

Many others have disappeared and even those who stayed around for a while seem to wavering.

We are aware of Tribunal cases coming up soon and Q1 2018. The latter is known to us only by reference from HMRC and how well funded they are and whether they will survive to FTT and beyond is not something we are aware of.

We are aware that the TAA argument has not yet been settled and is presumably due in Tribunal soon (unless HMRC roll over) but again, we have no knowledge of when.

We have no immediate plans to litigate on the main issues but we are preparing for potential action on some administrative matters that could have a bearing on final liability.

[Clairol]

I feel teased by your reply! Thanks though.

What is the TAA Argument?

Apologies, I'm just trying to get my head round the desperate situation that I unwittingly find myself in.....