IPSE and Tax Avoidance

[malvolio]

On face value it's correct. However, as with most things, it's not as simple as that.

"Similar" is a subjective thing. HMRC can (and will) argue that the circumstances are not similar.

Will the courts allow this argument - maybe, maybe not. No-one can tell you an absolute 100% answer.

More to the point., HMRC do not have any duty of care towards their custom.. victims. If they make a mistake, up to and including driving a profitable company into bankruptcy, it's not their problem. So even if you go to court and win, the chances are all you'll get back is your overpaid tax, not legal fees or anything else. That's why we need people like IPSE and Big Group to take these kinds of battles forward

[Fred Bloggs]

Personally I'm highly sceptical that Big Group, or anyone else for that matter, can achieve a reduced settlement.

Think about it. What's in it for HMRC to settle for less than 100% now, when they'll be armed with the loan charge in 2 years time?

Stick with BG, in my estimation you've got little to lose now. And there might be a good settlement drawing a line under the sorry saga for you.

Unlike in the post above, I suggest anyone in this kind of situation forgets all about IPSE. They made it clear a long time ago they want nothing to do with tax avoidance scheme users.

[malvolio]

Stick with BG, in my estimation you've got little to lose now. And there might be a good settlement drawing a line under the sorry saga for you.

Unlike in the post above, I suggest anyone in this kind of situation forgets all about IPSE. They made it clear a long time ago they want nothing to do with tax avoidance scheme users.

No they made it very clear that a very small number of their members - less than 20 - were caught in these schemes so they stood aside and let the dedicated specialists take it forward. Personally I don't believe they would gain anything by supporting aggressive avoidance schemes themselves, although they are following BG's work, and while they would obviously support any members who asked for help, they are probably not the best people to provide it.

None of which justifies "avoid IPSE like the plague" rhetoric: they are one of our few chances of this kind of situation coming around in the future. Unless you know of a better one?

[Fred Bloggs]

No they made it very clear that a very small number of their members - less than 20 - were caught in these schemes so they stood aside and let the dedicated specialists take it forward. Personally I don't believe they would gain anything by supporting aggressive avoidance schemes themselves, although they are following BG's work, and while they would obviously support any members who asked for help, they are probably not the best people to provide it.

None of which justifies "avoid IPSE like the plague" rhetoric: they are one of our few chances of this kind of situation coming around in the future. Unless you know of a better one?

Rubbish. Support for tax avoiders has been raised several times on the IPSE forum. Each time the powers that be make it clear they want to keep as far away from tax avoiders as they can. (We all know they talk to WTT and to others, that's not disputed.)

But to pretend otherwise just illustrates the kind of thinking that is going to make IPSE increasingly irrelevant as the tax net tightens to the point that contracting is no longer a way to legally minimise your tax.

By the way, please don't reply saying "it's not about the tax". We've heard it all before.

[cojak]

This thread is not about IPSE, take Fred Bloggs and Malvolio take your argument elsewhere.

[Fred Bloggs]

This thread is not about IPSE, Fred Bloggs and Malvolio take your argument elsewhere.

Apologies, Cojak. But, I have no argument and I will post no further in that direction.

Yet it is very important that the true position of IPSE is stated here. Some rose tinted view will not wash. If you are a tax avoider IPSE will do NOTHING to help you. They're on the record in their forum saying as much.

Thank you for the understanding.

[cojak]

Moved to outside of the thread, as I do understand - PCG/IPSE have been less than sympathetic in this matter.

[Fred Bloggs]

Moved to outside of the thread, as I do understand - PCG/IPSE have been less than sympathetic in this matter.

Thank you and understood.

[BrilloPad]

I can't see IPSE helping out on aggressive tax avoidance. They do a superb job at helping people out on IR35 battles etc.

[mudskipper]

IPSE/PCG do, and always have, advised members to steer clear of these schemes. IPSE do not believe they are likely to be seen by HMRC as a legitimate way of operating. Any member considering a non-standard arrangement and unsure of its legitimacy can contact the advice helpline.

N.B. The following is specifically excluded from the IPSE tax investigation cover

Tax planning arrangements where HMRC has allocated a Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Scheme (DOTAS) Number and any matter relating to bespoke tax planning outside of the normal trade such as film partnerships or film schemes, or planning involving artificially created losses or loan arrangements.

As IPSE's advice has always been to avoid these schemes, there are very few members affected.

If your only motive for joining is for defence in the event of a scheme investigation, then IPSE is not for you. But if you are now operating using a standard vehicle (LtdCo or sole trader) then the benefits IPSE offers are as applicable to you as the next contractor.