Bin Ltd co ?

[scot]

Think I'll stay with my LTD co, I retain control and I can sleep at night but thanks for the thoughts.

[Wanderer]

I’m not sure if the suggestion is that the accountant should not get a fee for providing access to a solution, but if so, then that is just unrealistic. Whether he is providing value for money is another matter that only the individual can decide.

I don't know any details of the scheme that scot's accountant is suggesting so I'm not commenting on that specifically but I find it intriguing that an accountant would recommend a tax avoidance scheme which is widely perceived to be risky and perhaps take a fee for "providing access" as you so quaintly put it. Doesn't really sound ethical to me.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

I don't know any details of the scheme that scot's accountant is suggesting so I'm not commenting on that specifically but I find it intriguing that an accountant would recommend a tax avoidance scheme which is widely perceived to be risky and perhaps take a fee for "providing access" as you so quaintly put it. Doesn't really sound ethical to me.

Percieved by whom to be risky ? Certainly not the vast majority of informed professionals specializing in tax or the laws related to taxation. We work with numerous accountants, chartered tax advisers and solicitors on behalf of clients. As for the ethical argument most proffessional advisers who are asked to audit our scheme are paid a fee for their work and don't actually care if it is compliant or not, they report the FACTS to their client as per their engagement. They all still manage to arrive at the same conclusion.

[JamJarST]

Percieved by whom to be risky ? Certainly not the vast majority of informed professionals specializing in tax or the laws related to taxation. We work with numerous accountants, chartered tax advisers and solicitors on behalf of clients. As for the ethical argument most proffessional advisers who are asked to audit our scheme are paid a fee for their work and don't actually care if it is compliant or not, they report the FACTS to their client as per their engagement. They all still manage to arrive at the same conclusion.

I percieve it to be risky!

[GillsMan]

Percieved by whom to be risky ?

I don't know, maybe the large numbers of people who have trusted similar schemes, or schemes of this ilk, who have faced HMRC investigation, retrospective tax demands and fines, and all that sort of jazz.

[craig1]

Percieved by whom to be risky ? Certainly not the vast majority of informed professionals specializing in tax or the laws related to taxation. We work with numerous accountants, chartered tax advisers and solicitors on behalf of clients. As for the ethical argument most proffessional advisers who are asked to audit our scheme are paid a fee for their work and don't actually care if it is compliant or not, they report the FACTS to their client as per their engagement. They all still manage to arrive at the same conclusion.

It might not be as risky as some make out, the likely outcome is that HMRC will just close the loophole at some point and those on the scheme will have to find another hidey-hole. That said, there is always the outside chance that there will be retrospective taxation as well as a meaty penalty rate because HMRC may find it "dishonest".

[JamJarST]

It might not be as risky as some make out, the likely outcome is that HMRC will just close the loophole at some point and those on the scheme will have to find another hidey-hole. That said, there is always the outside chance that there will be retrospective taxation as well as a meaty penalty rate because HMRC may find it "dishonest".

Well it is dishonest. Any "reasonable man" can tell that keeping 85% of your income is too good to be true.

[eek]

I percieve it to be risky!

+1

[meanttobeworking]

Percieved by whom to be risky ? Certainly not the vast majority of informed professionals specializing in tax or the laws related to taxation. We work with numerous accountants, chartered tax advisers and solicitors on behalf of clients.

That's what Norla/Edge said.

Disclaimer: It is possible that [our] structure may be challenged by HMRC in the future or retrospective legislation may be introduced.

That's what Geoff's website says.

[JamJarST]

That's what Geoff's website says.

Brilliant, so even the scheme provider thinks it is risky