Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
A scheme that promises a better return than dividends, with costs of just 14%, but doesn't tell you how it actually works? I'd run a mile.
The excellent advice in the umbrella company thread should be taken too - if you cannot trace a company's owners, and cannot see their history, be very, very cautious.
Quacks like a Duck
Looks like a Duck
Tastes like a Duck
Concludes :- Must be a scam?
I was an IPSE Consultative Council Member, until the BoD abolished it. I am not an IPSE Member, since they have no longer have any relevance to me, as an IT Contractor. Read my lips...I recommend QDOS for ALL your Insurance requirements (Contact me for a referral code).
In particular the Tax Planning and Corporate Profit Extraction services
Or should I stay clear?
Thanks
Just using their calculator now, on a day rate of £500 they advertise savings of up to £36,794!
Now, assuming 5 days a week for 46 weeks a year that's a turnover of £115,000 on which you would roughly pay 33% in tax (forgetting about FRS, expenses, salaries, dividend splits etc.) or £37,950 via a Limited company outside IR35.
Take off their saving would give tax payable of £1,156 or 1% of turnover.
I don't know how their 'scheme' works but if there was a legitimate way to only pay 1% in tax on a turnover in excess of £100k that wasn't open to challenge wouldn't everyone be doing it?
As others have said, if it seems to good to be true it most probably is and I would avoid any scheme like the plague in the current climate.
You need to be able to trust a company. If there are no matches to the searches below, the company is breaking the law. Do you want to do business with such a company?
So decide yourself, because I’m afraid that we aren’t going to tell you.
"I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
- Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...
They are an American company, according to their LinkedIN profile.
Their domain name has privacy enabled so there is no public record of who registered it.
There is no contact information apart from the UK-based phone number - no address, no company name, nothing.
If they aren't prepared to put on their website the details of exactly who they are and where they are based, why would you trust them with your money?
Best Forum Advisor 2014 Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership
They are an American company, according to their LinkedIN profile.
Their domain name has privacy enabled so there is no public record of who registered it.
There is no contact information apart from the UK-based phone number - no address, no company name, nothing.
If they aren't prepared to put on their website the details of exactly who they are and where they are based, why would you trust them with your money?
In fairness, they do have company information on the bottom of their 'Contact Us' page, although their company number is incorrect - it should be 08783447 and their registered office is a mail forwarding address, and doesn't match the Companies House information. So some sloppy admin?
As for their use of 'Whois Privacy Protection Service' - this could be naivety on their part, although it may indicate that they are registering, and managing, their domain in bad faith.
Anyway, read the HMRC scheme enquiries thread and decide if you really want the stress. If you are on this site and, therefore, have access to the reality of these schemes, then you would be totally bonkers - in fact fvck1ng stupid, to use them.
If you really, really, really want to press ahead, then use an established firm who explain the risks rather than firms who can't even be bothered to get their company information correct, hide behind mailing address and don't allow their domain information to be accessed.
Last edited by jbryce; 10 May 2014, 12:10.
Reason: added a bit of bold.....
Comment