Tempted to join a new solution to your contractor schemes? Ask the following

[webberg]

Any party with "skin in the game" is not somebody you should be seeking advice from unless you want that to be partial.

Those promoters still around are partial. I have no idea what drives them other than protecting their business, but if that is it, probably not a bad motive?

There are a number of advisers who may or may not belong to a professional organisation. Those that do have certain standards to adhere to.

Much as it pains me to say so, we have seen instances where performance has fallen below those standards in our opinion. Just bear in mind however that the organisations are perhaps more akin to a trade body than a regulator and although there is much discussion of "self regulation" in practice only gross misconduct is punished and often sharp practice is seen as competitive markets.

An adviser who gets a fee for selling a product should tell you. It's always worth asking and taking into account that commission if you are being pushed towards any product.

[PokemonStay]

Specialist subject: The bleeding obvious....

You would be amazed how many are still entering into contractor solutions. And how many will chase losses when they should quit.

[PokemonStay]

Take it easy Pokesy, I just thought it was a surprising contribution for your very first post. Normally folk make an introduction and/or set out some context. In your case you didnt but fair enough, horses for courses, we're all friends here.

We are not friends. We are not enemies.

I am just here stating the obvious. Sometimes it has to be said.

There is no context here.

[PokemonStay]

Any party with "skin in the game" is not somebody you should be seeking advice from unless you want that to be partial.

Those promoters still around are partial. I have no idea what drives them other than protecting their business, but if that is it, probably not a bad motive?

There are a number of advisers who may or may not belong to a professional organisation. Those that do have certain standards to adhere to.

Much as it pains me to say so, we have seen instances where performance has fallen below those standards in our opinion. Just bear in mind however that the organisations are perhaps more akin to a trade body than a regulator and although there is much discussion of "self regulation" in practice only gross misconduct is punished and often sharp practice is seen as competitive markets.

An adviser who gets a fee for selling a product should tell you. It's always worth asking and taking into account that commission if you are being pushed towards any product.

A few years ago solutions to contractor schemes were marketed. A fair few people put up £1000 in the belief everything would disappear. They lost their money. Realistically their chances were zero. It was just a scam. The person behind them still occasionally pops up on CUK - or so it is believed.

Clearly you are nothing to do with them and clearly your chances are greater than zero - how great depends how much money you raise.

It would be easier if there were some sort of no win, no fee. That does not exist in tax law. The lawyers always win.

[webberg]

A few years ago solutions to contractor schemes were marketed. A fair few people put up £1000 in the belief everything would disappear. They lost their money. Realistically their chances were zero. It was just a scam. The person behind them still occasionally pops up on CUK - or so it is believed.

Clearly you are nothing to do with them and clearly your chances are greater than zero - how great depends how much money you raise.

It would be easier if there were some sort of no win, no fee. That does not exist in tax law. The lawyers always win.

Our chances of getting a better result than "zero" have no correlation with how much money we raise.

We had an idea, researched it, executed it, continue to develop it and at funded to argue it. I cannot guarantee it will work (if I could I would be very busy and very wealthy) but we have shared it with our clients, explained it in fine detail - warts and all - and are moving forward only with those who are comfortable with it.

The "no win, no fee" position can work ONLY where there is a high level of confidence that the rules of the game will not be changed by one side if they feel under threat from a potentially winning argument. HMRC is not that party. Examine their tactics and law changes to "clarify" matters and "restore them to the understood position" over the past 10 years. You will see that the playing field is not only tilted in their favour but sometimes they decide that the rules have to change.

It would be commercial suicide to set out to spend a lot of money in the hope of a win against such a capricious counterparty.

There are in the market, litigation funders. They will examine legal cases and if they feel that a win is likely, will fund that litigation in return for a share of any compensation etc. Tax litigation funded this way id exceedingly rare because the funders know that the fisc has the power to change the law.

In the utopian world you are yearning for, I'd be happy to go on "no win, no fee". Unfortunately we deal in realities and I can't do that without gambling with my staff's salaries and pensions.

[smalldog]

Anyone that goes within 10 miles of a scheme must need their head examining. They may work today, but HMRC have an Ace up their sleeve called retrospection which they do apply.

[PokemonStay]

Anyone that goes within 10 miles of a scheme must need their head examining. They may work today, but HMRC have an Ace up their sleeve called retrospection which they do apply.

Agreed. However that is beyond the scope of this thread. The thread is examining solutions for those who have been foolish enough to get into a scheme. Sometimes the solution is worthwhile. Sometimes its throwing even badder money after bad money.

[webberg]

I think I started a similar thread on this on 12th June 2015.

Nothing has got better since then.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...following.html