Optima Professional / SP-Management / First 4 Lawyers

[ASB]

The downside is 45p. When you join your bum is the size of a 5p piece. When you have finished crapping yourself after all the hassle it is the size of a 50p.

Seriously, there are loads of horror stories. Folks tied up in investigations for a decade or more with potentially awful consequences.

This ought to give a reasonable clue - notwithstanding all the publicity and parliamentary rhetoric - that perhaps there could be trouble ahead.

Against that a salesman say "Nah, it's all fine, it's not an EBT". If that's good enough for you then go for it. They might have found that magic bit of alchemy which will be absolutely fine. Then they'll fire up the time machine.

(I personally hope those being attacked as a result of what was BN66 ultimately win. But even then I wonder if the decade of stress and uncertainty is any way compensated for by the reward obtained).

[DonkeyRhubarb]

But even then I wonder if the decade of stress and uncertainty is any way compensated for by the reward obtained.

Simple answer, no.

When I used the MTM scheme in 2001/2/3, the climate was a lot different. IR35 had only just come in and was a real fear. The scheme seemed like a reasonable alternative. Also, back then, tax avoiders didn't rank up along side Jihadis and Paedos as public enemy one.

Anyone who touches a contractor tax scheme now seriously needs their flipping head testing.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Coincidentally, I just heard from one of our members who has a mate in the SP management scheme.

Now it's crazy enough to even contemplate using a scheme these days, but here is the really astonishing part.

A few years ago, this mate was in another scheme, which went bad, and he was forced to go bankrupt.

Talk about insanity!

[Iliketax]

An EBT (Employment Benefit Trust) relates to effectively being Falsely Employed

An EBT has never been anything to do with 'Falsely Employed'.

Our solution is not considered to be a notifiable proposal or arrangement because...it does not involve pensions

The pensions hallmark ceased to have effect in April 2011. Have they thought about tax since then?

Why do they not mention the employment income hallmark? Perhaps because they forgot it. Or perhaps they haven't thought about it as it came in after 2013.

Finally, the primary purpose of the arrangements is to provide workers with a vehicle through which they can work to provide services to clients that is convenient for them and which takes away the administration hassles of business/limited companies i.e. it demonstrates commerciality.

Yeah, right.

The disguised remuneration legislation is relevant to employment income only, not self-employment income.

So the fact that you have a limited company, and are a director of that, means that employment income is relevant even if there is some sort of self-employment around.

Our solution has been designed to fully comply with all current and upcoming legislation.

Doesn't mean it is though.

Moreover, the solution has been fully reviewed and backed up by Queens Counsel opinion.

Who is the QC? What do their instructions says? What does their opinion say? When did they give their opinion? Does what the opinion says have anything to do with what they do in practice.

The solution is not affected by GAAR or registered for DOTAS.

Bearing in mind the new hallmarks, should it be?

Everything we do is absolutely legitimate, compliant and lawful. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

I wonder how many promoters who said that five to ten years ago said that and are still around?

To confirm in writing

It's fine to confirm by email but I'd want an indemnity supported by money in the bank. Having a 'pledge' by email is not going to help you.

And anyway, when you lose at the first tier tax tribunal you will still have to pay the tax. And interest. And perhaps a penalty.

none of our clients have ever been challenged by HMRC in relation to the solution

I guess they don't have many clients or their website was only just set up in January last year and so nobody has done a tax return yet.

Any thoughts? - Still stay away? I have a meeting with an accountant tonight to discuss also.

If you can read the security policy on the privacy page on their website and thoroughly understand then go for it. After all, other than your house, savings, car and ten years of your life, what have you got to lose?

[cojak]

I doubt the OP will be back - judging by the posts he deleted he never bothered to read the other threads in this sub-forum so he didn't discover the delights of an HMRC Enquiry.

He also didn't get the answer he was hoping for...

[DotasScandal]

Truly impressed by the goodwill of all those who took the time to post elaborate answers!

[DotasScandal]

When I used the MTM scheme in 2001/2/3, the climate was a lot different. IR35 had only just come in and was a real fear. The scheme seemed like a reasonable alternative. Also, back then, tax avoiders didn't rank up along side Jihadis and Paedos as public enemy one.

This.
That's why I love all the guys on these boards that serve harsh judgement ("If you were dumb enough to...") on people's decisions of 10-15 years ago, while totally ignoring the circumstances of the these times.

[cojak]

This.
That's why I love all the guys on these boards that serve harsh judgement ("If you were dumb enough to...") on people's decisions of 10-15 years ago, while totally ignoring the circumstances of the these times.

On the other hand CUK has been pointing and laughing since 2005...

[NotAllThere]

Moreover, the solution has been fully reviewed and backed up by Queens Counsel opinion.

An opinion that the Queens Counsel is never called to account about, nor suffers any consequence, when it goes tits up.

1. I have no idea why this is the wrong section
2. Im asking for advice, this is what this whole website is about right?
3. If its in the wrong section, move my post.
4. I don't take 1 or 2 peoples word, I'm thorough and require thorough research. If you expect me to just listen to 1 or 2 people when I'm shedding more light on the situation then your a fool.
5. I posted because I received more information stating it was not a Scheme...

6. Delete the thread.. I'm off to speak to some real legal advice.

Thank you everyone else for your feedback, much appreciated.

As a warning to others, I've quoted the deleted sections. It seems the OP wanted advice but didn't like the advice he got. However, I did some background checks and he's not, as I originally suspected, a shill for any of those scheme providers. Just, in my view, rather foolish.

[ASB]

This.
That's why I love all the guys on these boards that serve harsh judgement ("If you were dumb enough to...") on people's decisions of 10-15 years ago, while totally ignoring the circumstances of the these times.

I never joined any schemes because I didnt think they worked. I have revised that opinion over time. I believe they probably did in fact work, under the law at the time.

I also think that there was a general view that the downside would be broadly equivalent to being ir35 caught.

There was huge uptake in schemes with IR35. It was, in my view, a bit optimistic with what was known and practice at the time. But the expected risk was, in effect, the fees. That was a fair risk/reward ratio for lots of folk

It is only in the last 5 years or so that it has become a bit mad. Really since the "we will backdate to today" is where the tipping point was for me.