Talent Resource Management

[eyetie]

Add this one too...

Batchworth also trade as Bromley Solutions.

[vhadiant]

I am currently using a solution which offers a loan from a family trust, I get offered a 50yr loan with the opportunity to recieve another 50yr loan on the 50th anniversary of the first one. I have been told this is a commercial loan and is bearing an interest rate, however, this is rolled up over the 50yrs.....

Do you think this sounds more secure than TRM?

Sometime people just amaze me ...

[ASB]

I am currently using a solution which offers a loan from a family trust, I get offered a 50yr loan with the opportunity to recieve another 50yr loan on the 50th anniversary of the first one. I have been told this is a commercial loan and is bearing an interest rate, however, this is rolled up over the 50yrs.....

Do you think this sounds more secure than TRM?

I think you should read the Sempra judgement carefully and see how it mirrors your circumstances. You should also look at what happens in the FA next year very carefully.

Also consider: In the Sempra case the payments into the family trust were disallowed for corporation tax payments. Thus, in this case, there was a 30% tax liability accruing to the company.

I assume in your case that the "employer" if offshore. So CT mght be much less of an issue. But, if I were an HMIT I think I'd be trying to argue that the income the company generated was within the UK taxation system. Whether or not I'd be sucessful is a different matter of course.

So, you may well be OK, but do you have the largeish 5 figure sum it is likely to cost you to establish this when/if you get attacked (or indeed anybody else on similar arrangements does). You are supposed to be aware of all things that might affect your tax.

[malvolio]

I assume in your case that the "employer" if offshore. So CT mght be much less of an issue. But, if I were an HMIT I think I'd be trying to argue that the income the company generated was within the UK taxation system. Whether or not I'd be sucessful is a different matter of course.

I think the application of the Ramsay principle would answer that: it's an artificial arrengement clearly intended to avoid paying tax, therefore it can be set aside and all income deemed to be your own (not even YourCo's, yours personally). Hope they've got some savings...

[u9k82]

All you need to know

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/ebi...2/loans-03.htm

According HMRC "employees" are liable to pay class 1 NIC and not PAYE on loans written off by the employer

If you write the loan off now and submit a tax return in april 09 expect 10 pay in Jan 2010 . Calculate how much you will owe and get saving!

Also you wont get int trouble for not declaring the loan in previous years becuase its a non-qualifying loan as we have been paying interest above the standard rate.

[eyetie]

Facts needed

1. Do we have any proof that TRM/Batchworth/PaySchemePus are under HMRC investigation? I'm guessing HMRC won't comment on ongoing investigations so the only ones telling would be TRM etc.

2. Do we know when the investigation started? I think a lot of people will be happier when it's over whichever way it goes.

3. Can we take out insurance against an HMRC investigation going against contractors?

4. How far has JonC got with dealing with the situation? I met a tax lawyer at the weekend who may be able to help us (not directly but through her firm).

[ASB]

I think the application of the Ramsay principle would answer that: it's an artificial arrengement clearly intended to avoid paying tax, therefore it can be set aside and all income deemed to be your own (not even YourCo's, yours personally). Hope they've got some savings...

I'm not sure about that. Personally I haven't understood why Ramsay hasn't been used in some of the attacks. I assume there is some technical reason. It may be to do with the nature of the transactions. But yes, it's yet another worry.

Ultimately HMRC will be closing these schemes down.

In Sempra the company had paid over 30mln into the trust, i believe Montpelier has thousands of users. If it's 5,000 and they are averaging 100k a year thats about 250 mln per year of tax revenue at stake. There are loads of other companies out there too.

Use of this sort of scheme is very high risk, users may win individual battles, but they wil certainly - eventually - lose the war. Whether people like it or not this money being paid is income - either corporate or individual. Ultimately the treasury want thier pound of flesh.

It is abuse. Though anybody is entitled to use them, they just need to understand what they are getting into and the consequences should their chosen scheme fail.

[Lewis]

I'm not sure about that. Personally I haven't understood why Ramsay hasn't been used in some of the attacks. I assume there is some technical reason.

I agree, Ramsey wasn't used in the Sempra judgement. And in fact I'm sure I read somewhere in there something along the lines of "...to do this would mean ignoring the presence of the trust which we cannot do". So it would seem that however 'artifical' something like a trust might seem it can't just be ignored (at least not in all situations).

[cfos118]

what if i don't sign it

abc123abc - so no reply to your basic question on signing or not signing the form? I presume you have chased them and asked that a few times?

Is JonC still around, I've not seen a post from him in ages and I have sent him a PM about joining his group.

A friend of mine signed the form and sent it back to Redding before he spoke to me and found out about the current situation. He requested the form back and said there was an error and he got the original back so on the one hand I'm very dubious what their intentions are and on the other they may just be doing what they say in just taking over the administration. I guess they need to do it this way to make it look above board? Am I talking nonsense?

[Lewis]

A friend of mine signed the form and sent it back to Redding before he spoke to me and found out about the current situation. He requested the form back and he got the original back

You could certainly argue that if they were out to call in the loans they wouldn't have returned the form.