BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Just my opinion, and I am sure there are others who could give detailed responses of the pros/cons but I would never consider a scheme again. If you have read this thread from the beginning then I am sure you would come to your own conclusion.

Go ltd. Get a good accountant.

WHS

[pastalista]

Double taxation

Hi

Some of the schemes that I used did utilise the double taxation treaty loophole allowing money taxed in the IOM to remain untaxed in the UK. This is why I said that my case is somewhat different to your in that it is not all about this.

This is also why I didn't want to raise unnecessary panic regarding penalties.

I hope that clarifies

[Emigre]

A big welcome

Welcome to pastalista and to huuwshawdadi.

Thanks for delurking!

[pastalista]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I have signed the petition and have also submitted my history to DR for his file.

I am happy to do whatever I can to ensure that this odious piece of legislation dissapears. Let me know if I can help.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi

Some of the schemes that I used did utilise the double taxation treaty loophole allowing money taxed in the IOM to remain untaxed in the UK. This is why I said that my case is somewhat different to your in that it is not all about this.

This is also why I didn't want to raise unnecessary panic regarding penalties.

I hope that clarifies

Did you utilise the double taxation treaty loophole prior to 2001?

Since announcing BN66 in March 2008, HMRC have repeatedly claimed that they were unaware of any DT claims prior to 2001. It would be useful to know if they have been telling porkies.

It will be interesting to see how the negotiations proceed.

I think our situations might be mutually beneficial but I don't want to say anymore here. I will drop you an email.

Thanks
DR

[Toocan]

Hi,

I'm newly registered here but have swept through the halls of CUK a few times each year. I'd like to ask a couple of questions and would appreciate your opinions if you're willing.

I've just engaged one of the companies/schemes mentioned within the scope of this s858 and BN66 topic - specifically Steed Solutions - and was considering moving to it in the next week. It was actually CUK's topics that stopped me moving to Steed..I think almost two years ago now... I noticed the discussion on this or similar topic way back. As a result, I'm still with Giant and was affected by the failure of their MSC migration and am on their poorly returning Umbrella scheme. Like most I want to improve my lot.

Upon recommendation from a friend I contacted Steed. When I started discussions with Steed last week, I asked if there were any current or expected issues from HMRC that may adversely affect their scheme and was told that there were not. Given the discussion in this topic - admittedly, I've not had time to read the whole 353 pages but have read the last 20 or so - I'm now not convinced the answer was true.

So, here are my questions.

1. My understanding of the current state in this topic is that the June 16 hearing was positive for the "contractor"'s cause. But this has not resulted in a dismissal of s58 (or s858) but the setting of the need for a JR as "our" case has merit. This means that it is still possible that the HMRC may get their way but they're going to have to fight for it. It's not plain sailing for anyone in one of the schemes though.
Is this correct?

2. Does this affect people considering joining a scheme - Steed, for example? Given that this is about retrospective legislation I presume that it would still affect anyone joining and apply from this point onwards. I believe the best outcome from the legal challenge in this topic is that the loophole if closed shall not be retrospectively applied or penalised.

3. Should I not continue setup and instead consider other options?

I'd appreciate any advice.

Regards

Hi,

The schemes closed by s.58 FA 2008 are no longer marketed or used as they _may_ no longer work. In the main, the schemes that are now being sold are offshore EBT/BBT schemes that work using almost perpetual loans. The s.58 scheme used a loop hole in the Double Taxation Treaty that may have now been closed going forward.

If you are considering joining a scheme I suggest asking lots of questions and get professional advice on the scheme. Small differences between providers can result in the arrangement being effective or not.

One piece of advice I can give is that there is no point asking HMRC as they appear to be unable to understand ANY of the schemes. Why would they allow them to continue if they did? Hmmm? (Mr B - If you're reading, feel free to post an answer to this one - we'd all Love to know)

[Toocan]

Hi

Some of the schemes that I used did utilise the double taxation treaty loophole allowing money taxed in the IOM to remain untaxed in the UK. This is why I said that my case is somewhat different to your in that it is not all about this.

This is also why I didn't want to raise unnecessary panic regarding penalties.

I hope that clarifies

Ah! - you have used a series of schemes all of which are under investigation?

[dezze]

It has now been running for over 2 1/2 years (small beer to DR I know) and has been stressful and expensive (over £80k in fees so far).

Regards

You're spent £80k? What about the scheme providers? Didn't they support you in this?

[pastalista]

Spent £80k

Hi

No. In the first instance, one of the schemes that I was using dissapeared in 2005 and is no longer to be found. The other scheme is under investigation but not under attack yet.

My 04/05 return was questioned because of the use of an offshore company (not scheme related). I think I was caught in the trawl of the members of the scheme that has dissapeared.

The £80k is now being questioned by my lawyer given that the "disclosure report" that has been produced is useless and has left me in a worse position than I was in before.

One of the big problems with getting hit outside of the remit of a scheme (that is willing to defend the position) is that it is impossible to find much information on who can provide good help. My "advisors" were useless, despite their size and supposed gravitas. When looking for help during the initial panic after receipt of the notification of investigation, you tend to do web searches with obvious strings and the results are mostly accountancy firms. They all seem to boast about their staff being ex-Revenue but I think this is actually a negative. They know what our friends are looking for and tend to make it easy for them.

This is more a problem of tax law rather than accountancy and now that I have a tax lawyer working on the case, things have started to move. No results yet but we will see.

I am now in horrible debt because of a) the accountancy bills and b) the requirement to pay on account. I'm lucky because at least I'm still working but the toll is fairly significant.

Tax lawyers, of course, aren't free either but he is doing each stage at a fixed cost. I wish I'd gone to him first but hey.

Our mates almost won, because I almost gave up any kind of company or scheme and thought seriously about going perm (I've been a contractor for 26 years) but I'm not going to. They've gone far too far now and I'm not just talking about S58. It's time we fought back and it is so good to come across people that are. I'll spend a bit more cash to get this done and then we'll see.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi

No. In the first instance, one of the schemes that I was using dissapeared in 2005 and is no longer to be found. The other scheme is under investigation but not under attack yet.

Would you be prepared to name the schemes you used? It is possible that others on the forum have also used them. Quite a lot of people have moved around different schemes to spread the risk.

It would certainly be interesting to know who ran the double taxation scheme you used, and which years it operated.