breeze

[speling bee]

But there is risk involved. If its anything like other schemes it will however by your own risk rather than theirs.

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

[dezze]

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

Or 'Risk Free' or 'Minimal Risk' - depends it you keep watching the advert for a bit.

[eek]

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

That's right. Someone has zero risk (hint its not the potential customers as those who are suffering the joy that is Section 58 Finance Act 2008 will happily emphasis).

[dezze]

To be fair, at least these guys have stuck around - they must have known they were walking into a barrage of questions and not too nice comments (a bit like Geoff from another scheme I can't remember).

Mind you
1) I've no intention of taking them up on their offer and
2) I had nothing to do with Sunday

To me it's another loan scheme that pays the fees back if it goes south. It will be right for some people who are prepared for the risks involved and not for others. I only hope that those that do go for it go with their eyes open and understand what 'no risk' means in this instance.

[speling bee]

Or 'Risk Free' or 'Minimal Risk' - depends it you keep watching the advert for a bit.

I will of course update when the ASA responds to my complaint on this.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

But in Dextra, HMR&C's argument that F1989 s.43 applied was accepted by the Court of Appeal and the decision was upheld by the House of Lords. As the trustees were viewed as intermediaries it was considered that contributions made should be viewed as emoluments. As I understand it the same argument was successfully used in the Sempra case even though a family benefit trust rather than an employee benefit trust was used. Also aren't these cases about 10 years old?? I am fairly sure that there have been tax tribunals since that would offer more compelling case law especially after the legal strike against EBTs.

Phil hello

[speling bee]

Phil hello

Stop hogging the limelight. I want to know about zero risk as well.

[Vallah]

Phil hello

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.

[speling bee]

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.

But this isn't an EBT.

[Vallah]

But this isn't an EBT.

Lisa was talking about cases that were concerning EBTs.