Argentia, anyone heard of them?

[NotAllThere]

Interesting, your bias against EBT providers, when they are effectively competing with your company. The gap between stealth marketing and advice given in good faith has never been narrower...

Your point would have more relevance if it wasn't for the fact that plenty of us on this board are "biased" against EBTs, for many of the reasons she gives - i.e. they are artificial constructs, and a target for HMRC.

Do you work for an EBT provider?

[Vallah]

Your point would have more relevance if it wasn't for the fact that plenty of us on this board are "biased" against EBTs, for many of the reasons she gives - i.e. they are artificial constructs, and a target for HMRC.

Do you work for an EBT provider?

Well, I do, but the difference is, I haven't rubbished anybody else's service, using misinformation. So while it's correct to say that there is a degree of risk attached to using EBTs, it is not correct to say that anybody doing so risks being found guilty of tax evasion. Most of what the ContractorUmbrella poster wrote was just plain wrong, and showed a scant knowledge of both tax law and the facts of the case.

As the poster above rightly states, it's just marketing dressed up as advice. And before anybody accuses me of doing the same, I haven't publicly stated who I work for, nor have I linked through to any website.

[NotAllThere]

I have reread all of LucyContractorUK's posts in this thread, and at no time has she confused evasion with avoidance. I suggest you have a proper read of what she actually said.

I see no evidence of "stealth marketing". What I do see from you (and possibly PhilCBN) is competitor smearing. Cease and desist.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

At the end of the day, there's little point speculating on what might or might not happen with the EBT/loan schemes.

All I will say about HMRC though is...

the ends always justify the means

period.

[Vallah]

I have reread all of LucyContractorUK's posts in this thread, and at no time has she confused evasion with avoidance. I suggest you have a proper read of what she actually said.

Oh really:

However, HMR&C have moved the goalposts and decided that actually it was evasion and that everyone should have known it was evasion and therefore everyone deserves huge penalties and fines.

[cojak]

Just in case anyone is confused

Tax avoidance vs Tax evasion

It's interesting that finding a definition for tax evasion from HMRC proves difficult (if not impossible) to find because they like to treat both the same way
(see this also).

There some who want this debated. As they say it's only fair that the taxpayer knows what's expected of them.

But, needless to say, HMRC think that it's to their advantage to keep taxpayer's in the dark.

Just a reminder what HMRC say...

Which is just what Lisa is paraphrasing, I think...

[DaveB]

I have reread all of LucyContractorUK's posts in this thread, and at no time has she confused evasion with avoidance. I suggest you have a proper read of what she actually said.

I see no evidence of "stealth marketing". What I do see from you (and possibly PhilCBN) is competitor smearing. Cease and desist.

LisaContractorUmbrella

And I dont see any marketing efforts from her either, she's said nothing that many others on this board dont agree with re EBT's and offshore tax schemes. Most of us wouldnt touch them with a tulipty stick and many of those who have now regret doing so.

The fact is that under the present regieme any artificial arrangement designed to avoid paying UK tax will attract the attention of HMRC at some point, and their attitude to date has been one of "how can we close this down and get back the tax that we think should have been paid."

[Vallah]

Just a reminder what HMRC say...

Undisclosed tax liabilities arising offshore represent a significant risk to the UK Exchequer....

I've put the key word regarding evasion in bold for you.

[cojak]

Why tax avoidance is a problem for everyone

The Government, Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and HM Treasury (HMT) have a shared objective of minimising the tax gap (that is, the difference between the tax collected and the tax we think ought to be collected) within the context of the Government wider agendas. We want to provide our customers with a level playing field while maintaining the UK's international competitiveness. Our strategy for delivering this objective is through encouraging everyone to pay tax at the right time and vigorously tackling those who deliberately avoid their responsibilities.

In the UK the tax loss from avoidance is estimated to run into several billion pounds across both direct and indirect taxes. This directly affects the delivery of public services and long-term economic growth. Avoidance distorts markets, is economically unproductive and breaks the link between economic productivity and reward.

The vast majority of our customers do not participate in tax avoidance and will stand to benefit from HMRC's anti-avoidance strategy. HMRC is taking a proportionate, risk - based approach to avoidance, which is consistent with HMRC's commitment to supporting our customers.

What is tax avoidance?

HMRC's Anti-Avoidance Group (AAG) offers guidance about what factors indicate that tax avoidance may be occurring. It is impossible to provide a comprehensive definition of avoidance - HMRC's guidance describes the sorts of activity that HMRC may perceive as avoidance.

Based on an understanding of HMRC's guidance, our customers ought to be aware when they are undertaking activities that HMRC may regard as tax avoidance and thus taking on higher risks.

Lists of Signposts

# Transactions or arrangements where the income, gains, expenditure or losses falling within the UK tax net are not proportionate to the economic activity taking place or the value added in the UK - especially where the transactions or arrangements are between associates within the same economic entity and would not have occurred between parties acting at arm's length and/or add no value to the economic entity as a whole. For example:

* The transfer of ownership of an income stream from a UK resident company to an associated company resident in a low/no tax jurisdiction in circumstances where the economic activity giving rise to the income does not accompany the transfer of ownership and/or where no economic benefit accrues to the economic entity as a whole.

# Tax law is sometimes enacted to target particular transactions or arrangements and give them a particular tax result. Alternative transactions or arrangements designed to sidestep the effect of such legislation, but which otherwise achieve the same result, constitute a signpost. For example:

* Arrangements designed to give the same effect as a share redemption without constituting one in law to frustrate the operation of section 91A or 91B FA 1996 (shares treated as debt).

I've put the key words regarding avoidance in bold for you.

(The dangerous phrase is in red)

As I said, HMRC want to treat both the same.

[Vallah]

I'm perfectly aware of the difference between tax avoidance and evasion thanks.