breeze

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Yes. In general I know how they break it down.

I want a provider to cough up the information.

None seem willing to.

Which to me means they know they are sellers of snake oil and avoid questions that reveal the truth.

I've never come across a provider who isn't open about this in dealings with potential clients.

I'm not sure why they'd be coy about it on a public forum but that is somewhat different. To be fair on the handful who do post here, many providers wouldn't go anywhere near a public forum, especially one like this which almost certainly attracts the attention of HMRC.

[prozak]

I've never come across a provider who isn't open about this in dealings with potential clients.

I'm not sure why they'd be coy about it on a public forum but that is somewhat different. To be fair on the handful who do post here, many providers wouldn't go anywhere near a public forum, especially one like this which almost certainly attracts the attention of HMRC.

Snake Oil sellers I tells ya!

I think they hope that most people think 85% is a good deal. Those people fail to realise that a big chunk of that is pure profit for the provider. Oulining it here in various colours and tones including black and white will reduce the uptake of those who just concentrate on the headline 85% figure and don't ask much else.

[mudskipper]

Snake Oil sellers I tells ya!

I think they hope that most people think 85% is a good deal. Those people fail to realise that a big chunk of that is pure profit for the provider. Oulining it here in various colours and tones including black and white will reduce the uptake of those who just concentrate on the headline 85% figure and don't ask much else.

I wonder how much tax the provider pays on their profit?

[Vallah]

Nothing Vallah?

Are you will to post a complete breakdown of the allocation of revenue at least?

No offshore providor has yet come to the table with this information.

There is no IP in the breakdown.... Is there something else to hide?

Sorry, you weren't expecting a sensible answer to your childish questions were you?

On the question of revenue breakdown, it varies slightly from person to person, but 10% as DR suggests would be about right in most cases.

[prozak]

Sorry, you weren't expecting a sensible answer to your childish questions were you?

On the question of revenue breakdown, it varies slightly from person to person, but 10% as DR suggests would be about right in most cases.

No I was expecting a valid response to any of my sensible questions.

Perhaps you shouldn't use terms like "extremely sane"...

But then I guess superlatives and hyperbole is all you've got when you're selling snake oil.

Keep dodging the questions about a revenue breakdown. It says much about your products and ethics that you cannot answer direct questions.

[Vallah]

No I was expecting a valid response to any of my sensible questions.

Perhaps you shouldn't use terms like "extremely sane"...

But then I guess superlatives and hyperbole is all you've got when you're selling snake oil.

Keep dodging the questions about a revenue breakdown. It says much about your products and ethics that you cannot answer direct questions.

Which part of "10%" was unclear to you?

[prozak]

Which part of "10%" was unclear to you?

Is that a breakdown?

85% goes to the risk taker (i.e tax payer)
How much is NI. How much is PAYE. Where does the 10% go? How much to the trust? How much to legal counsel? How much to the provider? How much in insurance for challenges?

It is your customers money. They should know exactly what you are doing with it and why they take all the risk but only get 85%?

Do you tell your customers how much worse off they would be if HMRC successfully challenged their tax affairs? Or do you just tell them - "its a loan, there is case law don't worry about it there is no risk"?

[psychocandy]

Snake Oil sellers I tells ya!

I think they hope that most people think 85% is a good deal. Those people fail to realise that a big chunk of that is pure profit for the provider. Oulining it here in various colours and tones including black and white will reduce the uptake of those who just concentrate on the headline 85% figure and don't ask much else.

Never understood that. With small salary, split dividends between me and the mrs and both remaining below the 40% pretty sure I must be looking at well over 80%?

An extra few quid for the chance to get shafted up the arse by HMRC. No thanks.

Of course, different if you regularly go into the 40% bracket or worse.

[Vallah]

Is that a breakdown?

85% goes to the risk taker (i.e tax payer)
How much is NI. How much is PAYE. Where does the 10% go? How much to the trust? How much to legal counsel? How much to the provider? How much in insurance for challenges?

It is your customers money. They should know exactly what you are doing with it and why they take all the risk but only get 85%?

Do you tell your customers how much worse off they would be if HMRC successfully challenged their tax affairs? Or do you just tell them - "its a loan, there is case law don't worry about it there is no risk"?

Fees for legal counsel and trustee fees are merely our overheads alongside things like postage and head office salaries, there isn't a set percentage deducted from the contractors atrributable to those items of expense. The amount of tax and NI varies from person to person depending on their personal circumstances.

[prozak]

Fees for legal counsel and trustee fees are merely our overheads alongside things like postage and head office salaries, there isn't a set percentage deducted from the contractors atrributable to those items of expense. The amount of tax and NI varies from person to person depending on their personal circumstances.

I disagree that its just an overhead. This implies it is irrelevent for the risk taking party.

I am damn sure I would want to know how much of your overhead goes to retaining counsel, reserves for counsel or insurances to cover legal battles.

So not just an overhead. A very important part of the risk associated with your untested scheme.

Questions:

1. Do you tell your customers of the risk and how much worse they will be off when your self-employed benefit trust fails?

2. Do you tell your customers that your trust relies on a technicality in the legislation because the legislation uses only the word employee?

3. Do you tell your customers that HMRC have previously retrospectively clarified legislation and that the technicality above is a very likely avenue for retrospective clarification based on the obvious intent of the legislation?

4. Will I get an answer?

--
The answer to all 4?
Of course not that would ruin the scheme!