Offshore Option

[malvolio]

LCU we are more than happy to explain how the scheme operates in intricate detail but this is not the platform to do so, it's a forum for informed discussion and as our products finer details are comercially sensitive mass broadcast is not in anyones interest

Which is exactly what I said....

but do remember those paid by EBT up until Dec have kept their additional take home. I just don't think its fair to state that all these schemes are dodgy.

Up till Dec they have. No argument there. After Dec 9th they won't. Still no argument. Your point is?

And FWIW I have signed up the NDAs to look at three different schemes and the risks - while very nicely glossed over wth magic works like "insurance" - are still very real. Which is all I've ever said: if you go into these things with your eyes open, then fine, it's your money and your court case.

But the point is, there is a significant risk it will all go badly wrong, especially if HMRC change the rules, which is the one point your collectve advertising material never mentions. It's not about "all these schemes are dodgy", clearly some aren't. But ALL these schemes are riskier than using the standard Ltd Co model - something which, now that the ASA also has web-based advertising under its remit, you might like to consider rather more carefully.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It is extremely difficult to have an informed discussion if one does not have all the facts - people here are not going to accept that anyone's 'scheme' is safe without knowing the details and you are not prepared to give them.

There is no such thing as a "safe" scheme. At the end of the day, the scheme is only as good as the QC opinion which backs it up, and that is just an opinion after all no matter how eminent the barrister is.

Knowing the details wouldn't really help an informed decision because if it goes to court it will be determined on highly technical points of law.

The courts are taking a much more purposive approach to tax avoidance schemes these days, and HMRC have won quite a number of cases in recent years.

There are no guarantees and never can be.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

There is no such thing as a "safe" scheme. At the end of the day, the scheme is only as good as the QC opinion which backs it up, and that is just an opinion after all no matter how eminent the barrister is.

Knowing the details wouldn't really help an informed decision because if it goes to court it will be determined on highly technical points of law.

The courts are taking a much more purposive approach to tax avoidance schemes these days, and HMRC have won quite a number of cases in recent years.

There are no guarantees and never can be.

Totally agree DR - problem I have is the monotonous insistence from some on the board that the rest of us are all worrying about nothing and that newbie contractors have nothing to fear.

[Vallah]

But the point is, there is a significant risk it will all go badly wrong

Is there? Just because BN66 screwed over Montpelier contractors, it doesn't mean that every single piece of legislation is open to retrospective action.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

I would be delighted to provide them but as you are not someone who might use our services, I don't see why you are so interseted ? Your stance on the schemes is always going to be predictable, if any contractors want to PM me I will happily talk them through our methodology , legal opinion, insurance cover ect. the forums are not a platform to generate sales but suffice to say if you ever have to declare your car loan to HMRC then you will have to declare your involvement with our scheme.

[malvolio]

I would be delighted to provide them but as you are not someone who might use our services, I don't see why you are so interseted ? Your stance on the schemes is always going to be predictable, if any contractors want to PM me I will happily talk them through our methodology , legal opinion, insurance cover ect. the forums are not a platform to generate sales but suffice to say if you ever have to declare your car loan to HMRC then you will have to declare your involvement with our scheme.

Which, as usual , is totally ignoring the point. Also loans are specifically included in the anti-forestalling rules, so the question still stands; why are you convinced your scheme is out of their scope?

It is a circular and ultimately pointless debate. We say they're risky and people need to take care, assorted scheme providers pop up from the shadows and claim they aren't. We can prove our position, you clearly can't. And the increasing number of scheme defenders - none of whom are scheme users, only sellers - leads me to believe that perhaps your business isn't as successful as it once was.

[Vallah]

It is a circular and ultimately pointless debate. We say they're risky and people need to take care, assorted scheme providers pop up from the shadows and claim they aren't. We can prove our position, you clearly can't. And the increasing number of scheme defenders - none of whom are scheme users, only sellers - leads me to believe that perhaps your business isn't as successful as it once was.

You're never going to get people promoting schemes to use one of them, as we're employees of the company. If I was a UK based contractor though, then I'd certainly consider using one along with all other options.

And how can you "prove" your position? Not one of our contractors has had any difficulty with HMRC or in getting paid, so to tar everybody with the same brush is just baseless scaremongering.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

A very close family member of mine uses the scheme and has been contracting for thirty years he utilised various schemes long before I knew they existed ! Lots of people were happy to post about how " risky " EBT schemes were but those using them would have had some nice holidays with the extra money. We don't claim that they are entirely risk free, as some people claim, merely that they are one solution amongst many and depend entirely on your risk profile. Some people buy bonds some people have a share portfolio

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is there? Just because BN66 screwed over Montpelier contractors, it doesn't mean that every single piece of legislation is open to retrospective action.

If HMRC win the BN66 case then this has got to set some form of legal precedent.

No doubt some will claim that it only applies in the narrow circumstances of the DTA but to me that would be wishful thinking, and I'm sure HMRC will not see it like that.

In any case, notwithstanding retrospection, there is always a risk if HMRC takes a scheme to court that it could be ruled ineffective.

The problem is that the wheels in HMRC turn very slowly and it can be several years before they start sniffing around.

As an aside, I notice on another thread that Norla have shut up shop. I wonder where that leaves their users if HMRC comes knocking.

[Old Greg]

You're never going to get people promoting schemes to use one of them, as we're employees of the company. If I was a UK based contractor though, then I'd certainly consider using one along with all other options.

And how can you "prove" your position? Not one of our contractors has had any difficulty with HMRC or in getting paid, so to tar everybody with the same brush is just baseless scaremongering.

Vallah chooses to keep the exact details of his scheme private for commercially confidential reasons, as is entirely sensible in these difficult times. I can confirm that my own scheme (see signature) uses exactly the same tax planning approach but offers a significantly better return. In fact, we can offer >100% return because of the VAT payments relating to contractual payments. It leaves Vallah looking rather uncompetitive.

PM me for details.