breeze

[PhilBreeze]

MarkBreeze - Phil has been unable to answer a few of the interesting questions posted on the thread.

Give me a chance I'll get round to them all eventually, I promise.

[PhilBreeze]

There's the recent Rangers case, but that seems to have fallen down on the fact that the contracts were't drafted properly, ie that it was written into the players' contracts that the loans wouldn't have to be repaid.

Other than that, the legislation regarding the use of EBT schemes rendered them not viable from December 2010. Most firms offering such services stopped using them, and to date I am not aware of anybody having any problems with HMRC since. Based on my own experience, HMRC seem to have taken the view that they've closed that particular loophole, and have moved on.

Agreed I don't believe it was the product Rangers were using that was the problem - they didn't implement it properly. My understanding is that they ignored the advice they received and didn't amend the players' contracts to reflect the new (and substantially lower) PAYE salary.

[PhilBreeze]

And is it 8% interest now?

3%. HM Revenue & Customs:Late payment and repayment interest rates

HMRC can't charge penalties as the trust contributions are fully disclosed to them as they are made via the contributing company's annual return. There is no attempt to conceal - a note even goes off to HMRC with the annual return explaining the basis of the contributions.

[cojak]

That is incorrect. Their marketing materials clearly say, 'Zero Risk.'

And you believe that? Anyone can say anything on the web, there probably isn't anything to stop it in this kind of instance.

If there were cast iron guarantees that a promoter would still be in business when HMRC come a-knocking that would be something.

If there is zero risk then I would expect a legally binding guarantee that my money would be safe and any fines be paid by the promoter in the 'non-existent' case of HMRC looking at it, why not if there IS zero risk?

[BolshieBastard]

3%. HM Revenue & Customs:Late payment and repayment interest rates

HMRC can't charge penalties as the trust contributions are fully disclosed to them as they are made via the contributing company's annual return. There is no attempt to conceal - a note even goes off to HMRC with the annual return explaining the basis of the contributions.

LOL!

BN66 matey, BN66.

[mudskipper]

And you believe that? Anyone can say anything on the web, there probably isn't anything to stop it in this kind of instance.

If there were cast iron guarantees that a promoter would still be in business when HMRC come a-knocking that would be something.

If there is zero risk then I would expect a legally binding guarantee that my money would be safe and any fines be paid by the promoter in the 'non-existent' case of HMRC looking at it, why not if there IS zero risk?

Says on their website:

"Underwritten at Lloyd's of London - A Risk Free Proposition"

and

"Our strategy is fully indemnified at Lloyd's of London giving you ultimate peace of mind that you can use it without risk."

Haven't read the whole thread, but doesn't this mean they are guaranteeing the 'risk free' in terms of tax due and penalties.

If yes, then fair play. If not, then it does seem very misleading.

[cojak]

Says on their website:

"Underwritten at Lloyd's of London - A Risk Free Proposition"

and

"Our strategy is fully indemnified at Lloyd's of London giving you ultimate peace of mind that you can use it without risk."

Haven't read the whole thread, but doesn't this mean they are guaranteeing the 'risk free' in terms of tax due and penalties.

If yes, then fair play. If not, then it does seem very misleading.

Then I would want that written into the contract in VERY LARGE LETTERS.

Always assuming it doesn't do a Sunday Solutions...

[cojak]

And as for my general advice on this kind of thing; caveat emptor with a good dash of schadenfreude http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1549849

[SueEllen]

I wanted Phil Breeze or Mark Breeze to explain their marketing material as obviously none of us understand how it can be "risk free" or as another poster put it "zero risk".

However for some reason Phil Breeze has to do some research on why the statement on his company's website is true.

[speling bee]

And you believe that? Anyone can say anything on the web, there probably isn't anything to stop it in this kind of instance.

If there were cast iron guarantees that a promoter would still be in business when HMRC come a-knocking that would be something.

If there is zero risk then I would expect a legally binding guarantee that my money would be safe and any fines be paid by the promoter in the 'non-existent' case of HMRC looking at it, why not if there IS zero risk?

Bit there is no need to indemnify against interest and penalties because they are 100% impossible. That's what zero risk means and now that I understand that I am starting to regret my complaint to the ASA.

We busy need transparent Phil to explain the exact nature if his involvement with Sunday and we've nearly cleared up the whole thing.