breeze

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

We have a letter from HMRC confirming that our product is not a tax avoidance scheme that needs to be disclosed under DOTAS. Also there is the HMRC guidance which states:

"Schemes that promoters know to be known to HMRC are not caught by the hallmark. These can be evidenced from, for example, technical guidance notes, case law, or past correspondence with a case officer in HMRC where the detail of how the scheme works has been made clear."

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/aiu/dotas.pdf

Clearly the Dextra and Sempra litigation is known to HMRC.



The UK companies we work with make payments to a trust and these trust contributions need to be accounted for on the company's return.

Would you mind disclosing the exact wording on the letter Phil and what the letter was sent in response to?

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Would you mind disclosing the exact wording on the letter Phil and what the letter was sent in response to?

In the interests of fairness I would quite like to see the wording on your dispensation if you wouldn't mind just pasting it up here for us ?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

In the interests of fairness I would quite like to see the wording on your dispensation if you wouldn't mind just pasting it up here for us ?

OK but what would it prove? It would just tell people what expenses we have to record on a P11d and which ones we don't - slightly different to claiming HMR&C approval of a specific business model

[JamJarST]

In the interests of fairness I would quite like to see the wording on your dispensation if you wouldn't mind just pasting it up here for us ?

Will you be publishing the full details of your scheme?

[geoff from contracta IOM]

OK but what would it prove? It would just tell people what expenses we have to record on a P11d and which ones we don't - slightly different to claiming HMR&C approval of a specific business model

I know you struggle to understand these types of schemes but I don't for a second think a letter advising a business of their reporting obligations from HMRC constitutes an endorsement of the entire model from them.

You have an expenses dispensation, does that mean that HMRC agree that your company is fully acceptable to them in everything it does, or do they want audited accounts every year and ocasional visits to check ?

The point is that this type of document is private to a business , I agree that as part of an individuals due diligence prior to joining a scheme they should request sight of all relevant documentation, but don't ask a company to provide a level of information on an open forum that you would not be happy to release for your own company.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Will you be publishing the full details of your scheme?

Sure, you just pop your tax return up and I'm right behind you

If anyone who is genuinely thinking of joining our scheme wants so see any related documentation for the purposes of due diligence I make every effort to accomodate them.

[Incognito]

Been watching the thread with great interest and I think the breeze guys have bee extremely forthcoming. Instead of trying to make sly digs why don't you two guys explain in detail or play your 'joker' to why this point is important/pertinent.

I second this post. Whilst I personally wouldn't get involved in a manufactured scheme such as this, full credit to the guys coming on here and dealing with some pretty petulant posting. I personally think they've answered every relevant question put to them without avoiding anything.

They're offering to meet you and from what they've said they've tried to help the SS legal effort.

Lisa, you're not helping on this thread as you do have a vested interest and some of the information you're posting with regards to how the law operates in the UK is incorrect and to be honest pretty naive.

[JamJarST]

Sure, you just pop your tax return up and I'm right behind you

If anyone who is genuinely thinking of joining our scheme wants so see any related documentation for the purposes of due diligence I make every effort to accomodate them.

Sure I will do once it has been submitted, the obvious difference between my tax return and a scheme is that the only person at risk in mine is me.

P.S. I have never been an MD of a company that lost peoples money, only to reappear in a very similar line of work.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Sure I will do once it has been submitted, the obvious difference between my tax return and a scheme is that the only person at risk in mine is me.

P.S. I have never been an MD of a company that lost peoples money, only to reappear in a very similar line of work.

Luckily neither have I.

I more than understand why some people are digging here but investigating the individuals behind a scheme is one thing, there has been an air of accusation here that I don't think has been entirely justified. If people have some additional information then release it. I don't think they should keep nipping at something.

We have IMO arrived at the put up or shut up point. Yes this forum is largely anomyous but if people are prepared to disclose exactly who they are and try to answer questions then I don't think it's entirelly fair for those who maintain their privacy to keep insinuating without proof or also exposing themselves to scrutiny.

Thats my 2 pence anyway.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Luckily neither have I.

I more than understand why some people are digging here but investigating the individuals behind a scheme is one thing, there has been an air of accusation here that I don't think has been entirely justified. If people have some additional information then release it. I don't think they should keep nipping at something.

We have IMO arrived at the put up or shut up point. Yes this forum is largely anomyous but if people are prepared to disclose exactly who they are and try to answer questions then I don't think it's entirelly fair for those who maintain their privacy to keep insinuating without proof or also exposing themselves to scrutiny.

Thats my 2 pence anyway.

I take your point Geoff and I do admire Phil/Mark for discussing this on a public forum but you have to appreciate that other schemes he was involved with cost contractors money - they are bound to want more information, are bound to be cynical and are probably (justifiably or otherwise) annoyed that another scheme, similar to the one they were stung by, is blatantly advertising 85% take home by using loans in one form or another and promising that any contractor using them would be taking no risks whatsoever. I would imagine the BN66 guys would feel the same way if Montpelier put out a shiny new scheme with the same boast. From my point of view 'guarantees' and 'no risk' tend to aggravate me because there really is no such thing when you are dealing with HMR&C and other people's cash as the BN66 fiasco has proven and as it has happened once there is a precedent and could therefore happen again. I have no doubt that a good tax QC could sucessfully argue the legal validity of all schemes on offer but this only has merit if they win at a tax tribunal and even if they do the person they're defending (contractor or company operator) will be unable to claim back any costs which makes it a lose lose situation IMHO