breeze

[centurian]

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

They are saying that the scheme fees would be refunded (seemingly backed by insurance) - therefore you have no risk of being worse off than if you had not used the scheme.

However, this definition of "zero risk" makes a number of assumptions

a) That penalties are not applied - if this is a declared scheme, they are probably right, so I will have to give them this one.
b) That interest is not applied - I am less convinced about this, despite their assurances that there is no interest.
c) That the "Lloyd's backed insurance" is worth the paper it is written on.
d) That you were otherwise intending to go umbrella if you were not using the scheme - presumably that's the position the back-tax bill would place you in. You can't retrospectively set up a Ltd, pay into a pension etc.
e) That you sit on top of the money for 6 years and not be tempted to spend it, because you thought you were buying into something that was "risk free"

All in all, a lot of assmptions to classify something as "risk free" or "zero risk". Where's that bargepole...

[mudskipper]

They are saying that the scheme fees would be refunded (seemingly backed by insurance) - therefore you have no risk of being worse off than if you had not used the scheme.

However, this definition of "zero risk" makes a number of assumptions

a) That penalties are not applied - if this is a declared scheme, they are probably right, so I will have to give them this one.
b) That interest is not applied - I am less convinced about this, despite their assurances that there is no interest.
c) That the "Lloyd's backed insurance" is worth the paper it is written on.
d) That you were otherwise intending to go umbrella if you were not using the scheme - presumably that's the position the back-tax bill would place you in. You can't retrospectively set up a Ltd, pay into a pension etc.
e) That you sit on top of the money for 6 years and not be tempted to spend it, because you thought you were buying into something that was "risk free"

All in all, a lot of assmptions to classify something as "risk free" or "zero risk". Where's that bargepole...

Ah.

[centurian]

Ah.

Actually I might have overstated point d) - it probably wouldn't reset all the way back to umbrella tax status (employers and employee's NI), but it would certainly push you back further than if you had operated far more prescribed tax avoidance measures (Ltd etc.)

[speling bee]

On reflection I have a couple more questions but to make life easy will repeat my previous ones"

1.Is Breeze Zero Risk, essentially risk free, minimal risk or all of those. Exactly what does this mean?

2. What was the full extent of Phil's connection to Sunday Solutions.

3. Black Box Wealth Management is a director of Breeze. Who are all the partners of Black Box?

4. What is the full extent of Phil and Mark's involvement in previous schemes - it would be great to know what schemes you have run before to give us some confidence in your ability.

5. Can you share your QC's opinion with the forum please?

[cojak]

The only way you can be risk free is if you don't bother with it I reckon.

Go Ltd and use pension contributions..

[BlasterBates]

For anyone who thinks it's a no brainer, should go and look at the BN66 thread. This scheme was also promoted with a fees returned promise. Well a couple of things here. Firstly by the time HMRC clamped down on the scheme the back tax payable doubled due to interest and secondly the the subsiduary of the scheme operator that had the obligation to repay the fee was put into bankruptcy. One can imagine that if a scheme fails that the company operating it won't be too healthy by the time the court case has gone through and a decision has been taken.

If you are going to go into the scheme then you need to hold all the potential tax in an interest bearing account and wait 10 years so that you are sure the money does actually belong to you. If you spend it, like most people do, you'll go bankrupt if HMRC succeeds with their tax demands.

...and make no mistake when you hand in your tax return don't be naive to think that HMRC will go "ho hum, he hasn't paid any tax, that's legal what a clever guy", your case will be handed to the special investigations group and you will receive a COP 8, incidentally the same group that investigate tax fraud.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

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.

Then why cite the case as being relevant when defending your product?


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. Like what?

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. Perhaps you could explain why the individuals using your scheme are not subject to UK income tax

Since when does the age of case law affect its validity? How relevant is it today?? It relates to products that have been made illegal by statute 10 years later

Citation please?

Any case law concerning EBT's or FBT's will have no bearing since the introduction of legislation last year as this will over-ride existing case law

[JamJarST]

Despite all of this backwards and forwards and with some really rather worrying statements being made about Breeze, the people involved and previous schemes (scams?), the Breeze adverts are still quite prominent on this site! Surely CUK should get involved and stop the adds until some due diligence has been performed?

[MrJGrinder]

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?

[PhilBreeze]

On reflection I have a couple more questions but to make life easy will repeat my previous ones"

1.Is Breeze Zero Risk, essentially risk free, minimal risk or all of those. Exactly what does this mean?

2. What was the full extent of Phil's connection to Sunday Solutions.

3. Black Box Wealth Management is a director of Breeze. Who are all the partners of Black Box?

4. What is the full extent of Phil and Mark's involvement in previous schemes - it would be great to know what schemes you have run before to give us some confidence in your ability.

5. Can you share your QC's opinion with the forum please?

Hi spelling bee,

1. Personally I believe our claims about risk to be justified as the worst that can happen is you end up with the tax bill that you would have had, had you not used Breeze – plus interest (currently 3%).

2. I worked for Sunday Solutions as a salesperson. I was one of about 20 salespeople. When Sunday went under I was “transferred” to Fleming Laing along with a number of Sunday clients and other staff. That was about 10 months before the tax deadline. When it became clear the Sunday clients were not getting their tax money the following January, I handed in my notice at Fleming Laing not least due to concerns over the true management and control of that company. A lot of people lost a lot of money, I lost my job. I have sympathy with anyone affected, Fleming Laing had a large number of ex-Sunday contractors and I know first-hand the amount of stress and trauma caused to these people. It’s a disgrace. Anyone affected is welcome to contact me and I will try to help them as best I can, I can’t promise that anything I know will be of help but justice has not yet been served in my opinion and if I can help anyone affected of course I will.

3. Mark and I are the sole partners of Black Box.

4. As I said I was a salesperson at Sunday Solutions and Fleming Laing. I also worked for Sunday Solutions’ international brand, Von Essen, for about 6 months while I was working at Sunday. Before launching Breeze I was a director at CBN Global which I left in January 2012.

5. Robert Venables QC :
“In my Opinion, the Trust Deed settled by me for my Instructing Solicitor has the effect that:
- contributions to it are not prevented from being immediately deductible for corporation tax purposes by the Unpaid Remuneration Rules (i.e. Corporation Tax Act 2009 sections 1288 and 1289);
- contributions to it are not prevented from being immediately deductible for corporation tax purposes by the Employee Benefit Contributions Rules (i.e. Corporation Tax Act 2009 sections 1290 to 1296);
- the settled property should fall within Inheritance Tax Act 1984 section 86;
- the proposed new Part 7A of Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 should not apply to the trusts and powers created by it.”