If it seems to good to be true............80%-90% take home

[kal]

Yet there are still plenty of mugs willing to sign up - without them, the schemes wouldn't exist.

We're not talking about 90 year olds with dementia being conned to buy stuff they don't need at 10x market price - these are supposedly intelligent professionals. If you can't read the writing on the wall after all this, you must have several loose screws.

Indeed, I guess if you sign up to one of these schemes now in the current climate you get what you deserve when HMRC come calling for their money, its the ones who signed up years ago and are now getting their collars felt one should be a bit sorry for...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Is there a complaint to be made to the Law Society (or whatever) about these QC opinions?

Maybe, if the QC had actually given approval of a scheme and had stated that it would be without risk. Trouble is with this type of scheme is that they say that have QC 'opinion' but they won't actually tell you what the opinion is.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Indeed, I guess if you sign up to one of these schemes now in the current climate you get what you deserve when HMRC come calling for their money, its the ones who signed up years ago and are now getting their collars felt one should be a bit sorry for...

The proposed accelerated payment legislation (AP) will force people to pay the disputed tax before any case has been heard in court.

This potentially affects anyone who has used a scheme in the last 10 years, since DOTAS came in. Many contractors won't be able to afford to pay.

However, the Government will argue that
(a) people should have put the money on one side
(b) HMRC win most cases, so the end result is the same and people would eventually have to pay up anyway

[Old Greg]

Maybe, if the QC had actually given approval of a scheme and had stated that it would be without risk. Trouble is with this type of scheme is that they say that have QC 'opinion' but they won't actually tell you what the opinion is.

Take our old friends Breeze.

Compliance | Breeze Wealth

Further endorsed by a QC specialising in trust taxation

It seems that if the QC has endorsed, then there may be a complaint to be had, and if not then providers are telling porkies and you'd think the QC might seek to protect their position.

Lisa, these guys (providers in general, not specifically Breeze) may be in unfair competition with you. Get in there...

[kal]

Take our old friends Breeze.

Compliance | Breeze Wealth



It seems that if the QC has endorsed, then there may be a complaint to be had, and if not then providers are telling porkies and you'd think the QC might seek to protect their position.

Lisa, these guys (providers in general, not specifically Breeze) may be in unfair competition with you. Get in there...

Looking at the Breeze website they helpfully flag all other 85%+ returns schemes as 'tax avoidance' except their own without any explanation of why their magic bean offering is not, I mean come on, who falls for this nowadays!

[Old Greg]

Looking at the Breeze website they helpfully flag all other 85%+ returns schemes as 'tax avoidance' except their own without any explanation of why their magic bean offering is not, I mean come on, who falls for this nowadays!

We've had our fun: http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...55-breeze.html

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Take our old friends Breeze.

Compliance | Breeze Wealth



It seems that if the QC has endorsed, then there may be a complaint to be had, and if not then providers are telling porkies and you'd think the QC might seek to protect their position.

Lisa, these guys (providers in general, not specifically Breeze) may be in unfair competition with you. Get in there...

Wish we could The trouble is that getting information from these guys is really tricky - we have tried whilst working on another project that I have on the go at the moment but it's virtually impossible. We have managed to get some condemning evidence but I have never seen anything from a QC or even purported to be from a QC in writing.

As an aside I can't help thinking that their claim of 20 years industry experience is a bit off:

Breeze Wealth LtdEdit details
Company Number: 08036919
Company Type: Private limited with share capital
SIC Code: 6713, Activities Auxiliary To Financial Intermediation Not Elsewhere Classified
Website: Add Website
Inc. Date: 19 Apr 2012
Annual Returns: 19 Apr 2013
Annual Accounts: 30 Apr 2013

Forgive me if we've already had this discussion but did we know that one of the directors of Breeze was also a director of Von Essen?

[Old Greg]

Wish we could The trouble is that getting information from these guys is really tricky - we have tried whilst working on another project that I have on the go at the moment but it's virtually impossible. We have managed to get some condemning evidence but I have never seen anything from a QC or even purported to be from a QC in writing.

As an aside I can't help thinking that their claim of 20 years industry experience is a bit off:

Breeze Wealth LtdEdit details
Company Number: 08036919
Company Type: Private limited with share capital
SIC Code: 6713, Activities Auxiliary To Financial Intermediation Not Elsewhere Classified
Website: Add Website
Inc. Date: 19 Apr 2012
Annual Returns: 19 Apr 2013
Annual Accounts: 30 Apr 2013

Forgive me if we've already had this discussion but did we know that one of the directors of Breeze was also a director of Von Essen?

Have a look at the thread I linked to.

But if they say they are QC endorsed, then a complain is that this is misleading and then they must demonstrate that it isn't.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Have a look at the thread I linked to.

But if they say they are QC endorsed, then a complain is that this is misleading and then they must demonstrate that it isn't.

Could possibly be considered false advertising but I don't think they'd be that stupid. What's more likely is that they asked a QC their opinion on whether the scheme would succeed in court, as the law stood at that moment in time - if the QC said chances of success was over 50% that would be enough for their marketing claim

[Old Greg]

Could possibly be considered false advertising but I don't think they'd be that stupid. What's more likely is that they asked a QC their opinion on whether the scheme would succeed in court, as the law stood at that moment in time - if the QC said chances of success was over 50% that would be enough for their marketing claim

I've already had one successful ASA complaint against them