breeze

[BlasterBates]

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.

That's interesting so contradicting what was said here:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1482468

It has already been established that those who used correctly structured EBT's have nothing to worry about

[electro]

Websites, names, directors

Me too

Phil - you and your colleagues must have realised the response you'd get on here.

My question is: knowing some of our history with these 'solutions', why haven't you upped the game a little with your website? It looks exactly like tens of others: brochure-ware full of unsubstantiated claims.

You could start by naming the accountants and company directors. Link to the accountants' records on the ICA website - they're all members, right? Link to the history of the directors - they're all legit with decent references, right? Put photos up. Link to linked.in profiles - then we can see who's recommended you.

This isn't you is it? Breeze & Associates - Chartered Accountants - Offices in Eastbourne &Brighton ? Why pick yet another name c.f. Bradbury and Co. where you confuse yourselves with an accountancy firm with an existing presence?

[MrJGrinder]

Link to the history of the directors - they're all legit with decent references, right

Hahahaha

[MrJGrinder]

MarkBreeze

As you chose not to answer the question surrounding the alleged family members and friends you signed up to Sunday Solutions in your capacity of Managing Director there (see 100 page-long thread for details) how about you continue the 'transparency' you claim to show on here:

Can you please name every company you have worked for and/or owned in the contractor tax industry and your job title at that company?

Think carefully before answering, I know a little more than you may think

John

[speling bee]

MarkBreeze

As you chose not to answer the question surrounding the alleged family members and friends you signed up to Sunday Solutions in your capacity of Managing Director there (see 100 page-long thread for details) how about you continue the 'transparency' you claim to show on here:

Can you please name every company you have worked for and/or owned in the contractor tax industry and your job title at that company?

Think carefully before answering, I know a little more than you may think

John

Previous names are also important to know.

[MarkBreeze]

MarkBreeze

As you chose not to answer the question surrounding the alleged family members and friends you signed up to Sunday Solutions in your capacity of Managing Director there (see 100 page-long thread for details) how about you continue the 'transparency' you claim to show on here:

Can you please name every company you have worked for and/or owned in the contractor tax industry and your job title at that company?

Think carefully before answering, I know a little more than you may think

John

John, I did not choose to not answer the questions.....what I actually said was

"Hi John
I don't think that it's appropriate to publish names of individuals on a public forum.
I suggest the best way forward here may be to meet face to face - which I am happy to do.
I can be contacted via the office switchboard or PM me and I will forward you my personal mobile number.
I am in London usually 3 or 4 days per week and can meet at our office or a location of your choice.
As I am unsure of your location, I would also be prepared to meet you outside of working hours including the weekend if that would be be more mutually convenient?

Please let me know?
Mark "

I fully understand that any contractor that was caught up in the debacle caused by Sunday will be angry and looking to apportion blame and ideally extract some form of retribution - I get that.

However you are looking in the wrong place and looking to blame the wrong people- those are Facts.

Let me ask you and any other contractor that was caught up in that mess a question - what have all your postings, accusations, finger pointing, conspiracy theories and even your legal actions achieved for you so far?
Literally hundreds of you have been on the Sunday thread for years exchanging views and opinions grounded in rumour and conjecture - and it has achieved absolutely nothing!
Yet you continue to do absolutely the same thing on both this thread and indeed the other thread where I have posted in reply to your questions and the questions of others - you seem to be expecting a different result?

Only this time you are choosing to blame and attempting to discredit the only people (associated with that mess) that have ever come forward using their true identities onto this forum???

• There was only one person (that I am aware of) that was ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that approached the contractor action group (using my real name) and volunteered information to help - that was me. Perhaps you should check with the legal company that was representing you that this was indeed the case.
• There are only two people (that I am aware of) that were ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that pay to advertise on this website - knowing full well that we were probably going to be vehemently attacked because of the company that we are previously associated with - Phil and Myself.
• There are only two people (that I am aware of) that were ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that have posted on the forum using their real identity - Phil and myself.

Do you really think that I/we would have done any of the above if we were in any way culpable for the Sunday mess?
Or do you not think that it's more likely that (if we were culpable) we would adopt the tactics of the people that are REALLY responsible for what happened - hide and deny. Those tactics have very obviously worked for them thus far !

I have offered to meet face to face - the first person I would hazard a guess that was linked to that organisation that has ever offered to do so.
Do you not think that I could possibly help you ? Would that not be, at the very least, worthy of further investigation?

You have been presented with 2 choices:

1) Meet with somebody that actually knows a lot more than most about who, what, when, etc
2) Continue with the tactics that got the affected contractors on here nowhere for years - attacking, finger pointing and not letting facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

I am absolutely bewildered that you are choosing to continue to attack me- unless of course I adopt your tactics and suggest that seeing as you have only started posting in the last couple of weeks and your posts are only all about attacking me and the business that I am now associated with - are you who you say you are?.........or are you possibly somebody that has a purely vested interest in seeing me completely discredited .......I wonder who that could be?????
I am offering to meet with no agenda other than to rightfully clear my name and the names of anybody else that is working with me at Breeze - I will help in any way that I possibly can.

Mark

[speling bee]

John, I did not choose to not answer the questions.....what I actually said was

"Hi John
I don't think that it's appropriate to publish names of individuals on a public forum.
I suggest the best way forward here may be to meet face to face - which I am happy to do.
I can be contacted via the office switchboard or PM me and I will forward you my personal mobile number.
I am in London usually 3 or 4 days per week and can meet at our office or a location of your choice.
As I am unsure of your location, I would also be prepared to meet you outside of working hours including the weekend if that would be be more mutually convenient?

Please let me know?
Mark "

I fully understand that any contractor that was caught up in the debacle caused by Sunday will be angry and looking to apportion blame and ideally extract some form of retribution - I get that.

However you are looking in the wrong place and looking to blame the wrong people- those are Facts.

Let me ask you and any other contractor that was caught up in that mess a question - what have all your postings, accusations, finger pointing, conspiracy theories and even your legal actions achieved for you so far?
Literally hundreds of you have been on the Sunday thread for years exchanging views and opinions grounded in rumour and conjecture - and it has achieved absolutely nothing!
Yet you continue to do absolutely the same thing on both this thread and indeed the other thread where I have posted in reply to your questions and the questions of others - you seem to be expecting a different result?

Only this time you are choosing to blame and attempting to discredit the only people (associated with that mess) that have ever come forward using their true identities onto this forum???

• There was only one person (that I am aware of) that was ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that approached the contractor action group (using my real name) and volunteered information to help - that was me. Perhaps you should check with the legal company that was representing you that this was indeed the case.
  
• There are only two people (that I am aware of) that were ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that pay to advertise on this website - knowing full well that we were probably going to be vehemently attacked because of the company that we are previously associated with - Phil and Myself.
  
• There are only two people (that I am aware of) that were ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that have posted on the forum using their real identity - Phil and myself.

Do you really think that I/we would have done any of the above if we were in any way culpable for the Sunday mess?
Or do you not think that it's more likely that (if we were culpable) we would adopt the tactics of the people that are REALLY responsible for what happened - hide and deny. Those tactics have very obviously worked for them thus far !

I have offered to meet face to face - the first person I would hazard a guess that was linked to that organisation that has ever offered to do so.
Do you not think that I could possibly help you ? Would that not be, at the very least, worthy of further investigation?

You have been presented with 2 choices:

1) Meet with somebody that actually knows a lot more than most about who, what, when, etc
2) Continue with the tactics that got the affected contractors on here nowhere for years - attacking, finger pointing and not letting facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

I am absolutely bewildered that you are choosing to continue to attack me- unless of course I adopt your tactics and suggest that seeing as you have only started posting in the last couple of weeks and your posts are only all about attacking me and the business that I am now associated with - are you who you say you are?.........or are you possibly somebody that has a purely vested interest in seeing me completely discredited .......I wonder who that could be?????
I am offering to meet with no agenda other than to rightfully clear my name and the names of anybody else that is working with me at Breeze - I will help in any way that I possibly can.

Mark

What was Phil's connection to Sunday?

[MrJGrinder]

John, I did not choose to not answer the questions.....what I actually said was

"Hi John
I don't think that it's appropriate to publish names of individuals on a public forum.
I suggest the best way forward here may be to meet face to face - which I am happy to do.
I can be contacted via the office switchboard or PM me and I will forward you my personal mobile number.
I am in London usually 3 or 4 days per week and can meet at our office or a location of your choice.
As I am unsure of your location, I would also be prepared to meet you outside of working hours including the weekend if that would be be more mutually convenient?

Please let me know?
Mark "

I fully understand that any contractor that was caught up in the debacle caused by Sunday will be angry and looking to apportion blame and ideally extract some form of retribution - I get that.

However you are looking in the wrong place and looking to blame the wrong people- those are Facts.

Let me ask you and any other contractor that was caught up in that mess a question - what have all your postings, accusations, finger pointing, conspiracy theories and even your legal actions achieved for you so far?
Literally hundreds of you have been on the Sunday thread for years exchanging views and opinions grounded in rumour and conjecture - and it has achieved absolutely nothing!
Yet you continue to do absolutely the same thing on both this thread and indeed the other thread where I have posted in reply to your questions and the questions of others - you seem to be expecting a different result?

Only this time you are choosing to blame and attempting to discredit the only people (associated with that mess) that have ever come forward using their true identities onto this forum???

• There was only one person (that I am aware of) that was ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that approached the contractor action group (using my real name) and volunteered information to help - that was me. Perhaps you should check with the legal company that was representing you that this was indeed the case.
• There are only two people (that I am aware of) that were ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that pay to advertise on this website - knowing full well that we were probably going to be vehemently attacked because of the company that we are previously associated with - Phil and Myself.
• There are only two people (that I am aware of) that were ever genuinely linked to Sunday, that have posted on the forum using their real identity - Phil and myself.

Do you really think that I/we would have done any of the above if we were in any way culpable for the Sunday mess?
Or do you not think that it's more likely that (if we were culpable) we would adopt the tactics of the people that are REALLY responsible for what happened - hide and deny. Those tactics have very obviously worked for them thus far !

I have offered to meet face to face - the first person I would hazard a guess that was linked to that organisation that has ever offered to do so.
Do you not think that I could possibly help you ? Would that not be, at the very least, worthy of further investigation?

You have been presented with 2 choices:

1) Meet with somebody that actually knows a lot more than most about who, what, when, etc
2) Continue with the tactics that got the affected contractors on here nowhere for years - attacking, finger pointing and not letting facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

I am absolutely bewildered that you are choosing to continue to attack me- unless of course I adopt your tactics and suggest that seeing as you have only started posting in the last couple of weeks and your posts are only all about attacking me and the business that I am now associated with - are you who you say you are?.........or are you possibly somebody that has a purely vested interest in seeing me completely discredited .......I wonder who that could be?????
I am offering to meet with no agenda other than to rightfully clear my name and the names of anybody else that is working with me at Breeze - I will help in any way that I possibly can.

Mark

As I replied on the other thread, I will frequent your Lombard Street 'office' a few times in the next week or so and have a chat then. As you are there "3 or 4 days a week" I am sure I will catch you.

As for the rest, can you please answer the following questions (asked for the second time):

Can you please name every company you have worked for and/or owned in the contractor tax industry and your job title at that company?

[SueEllen]

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

Do you think you could answer them for us?

The first is this and the second is to explain how the scheme is "zero risk".

[PhilBreeze]

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.

s.43 is relevant to the corporation tax treatment of the contributions to the trust, not the personal taxation of the beneficiaries. The ruling that s.43 had application was largely moot anyway as the legislation was changed less than 3 months later to put beyond doubt that "potential emoluments" were not deductible.

This is only actually relevant to EBTs/FBTs and our product does not utilise one.

As the trustees were viewed as intermediaries it was considered that contributions made should be viewed as emoluments

The HMRC's case was that contributions to the trust were potential emoluments held by the trustees with a view to becoming relevant emoluments, therefore no CT deduction was available until the funds were paid out of the trust as emoluments. To say that the contributions were viewed as emoluments simply because the trustees were viewed as intermediaries is misleading, there is more to it than that.

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.

As the trust in our product is neither an EBT nor an FBT, contributions are not subject to CT by the contributing company. Contributions are made from UK registered businesses and have been for years without any enquiry from HMRC.

Also aren't these cases about 10 years old??

Since when does the age of case law affect its validity?

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.

Citation please?