• 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.

BIG GROUP

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by webberg View Post
    It might be theoretical but it's where we are. The Boyle case is not a theory but a hard fact. I have described that.
    My point is, if someone choses to follow the CLSO 2 route because it is the cheapest and quickest of a band bunch of choices then I think it is reasonable to assume that all concerned parties are in agreement that the loans existed and that nobody is going to start claiming they don't exist or start chasing money trails that happened 15 years ago. I'm talking about CLSO 2 here and I'm trying to understand the worst case scenario; I know it all except IHT. I've told you the scheme in question (Horizon). If someone wanted to argue the loans weren't real etc.. then they're not likely to be going down the CLSO 2 route.

    Comment


      Originally posted by starstruck View Post
      My point is, if someone choses to follow the CLSO 2 route because it is the cheapest and quickest of a band bunch of choices then I think it is reasonable to assume that all concerned parties are in agreement that the loans existed and that nobody is going to start claiming they don't exist or start chasing money trails that happened 15 years ago. I'm talking about CLSO 2 here and I'm trying to understand the worst case scenario; I know it all except IHT. I've told you the scheme in question (Horizon). If someone wanted to argue the loans weren't real etc.. then they're not likely to be going down the CLSO 2 route.
      I suggest you get some advice.

      For me, the settlement process, CLSO 2 or otherwise, has far too many uncertain aspects and is a long way from a final position and a long way from stopping HMRC asking you for more money in the future.

      You should also remember that it deals only with the tax issues.

      The loan and trust remain in place. Unwinding them may bring more tax costs as well as fees.

      I'm familiar with Horizon and observe that the CLSO 2 terms clearly do not have this in mind.

      As I said, it's your choice and there are more things to consider than just the tax but if you're going to use this, understand it. If you don't understand it, get some advice.
      Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

      (No, me neither).

      Comment


        Originally posted by webberg View Post
        I suggest you get some advice.

        For me, the settlement process, CLSO 2 or otherwise, has far too many uncertain aspects and is a long way from a final position and a long way from stopping HMRC asking you for more money in the future.

        You should also remember that it deals only with the tax issues.

        The loan and trust remain in place. Unwinding them may bring more tax costs as well as fees.

        I'm familiar with Horizon and observe that the CLSO 2 terms clearly do not have this in mind.

        As I said, it's your choice and there are more things to consider than just the tax but if you're going to use this, understand it. If you don't understand it, get some advice.
        Webberg

        I agree with what you say. The uncertainty and lack of finality are of concern with the CLSO2.

        I understand you can't divulge much yet but can you perhaps answer this: the solution your team has formulated and will (I guess) be approaching HMRC with - does that aim to achieve final closure for the individuals? And why would HMRC care to entertain any offer unless it meets their CLSO2, seeing as they will have the Loan Charge as a catch-all?

        Comment


          Originally posted by ChimpMaster View Post
          Webberg

          I agree with what you say. The uncertainty and lack of finality are of concern with the CLSO2.

          I understand you can't divulge much yet but can you perhaps answer this: the solution your team has formulated and will (I guess) be approaching HMRC with - does that aim to achieve final closure for the individuals? And why would HMRC care to entertain any offer unless it meets their CLSO2, seeing as they will have the Loan Charge as a catch-all?
          Yes we aim to achieve a final settlement because it includes dealing with all aspects.

          HMRC will almost certainly not wish to entertain anything other than their dogmatic insistence on their analysis which is entirely untenable in the light of Rangers.

          The issue of CLSO 2 with no mention of that decision is all the evidence you need that HMRC are in denial.
          Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

          (No, me neither).

          Comment


            Originally posted by webberg View Post
            I suggest you get some advice.

            For me, the settlement process, CLSO 2 or otherwise, has far too many uncertain aspects and is a long way from a final position and a long way from stopping HMRC asking you for more money in the future.

            You should also remember that it deals only with the tax issues.

            The loan and trust remain in place. Unwinding them may bring more tax costs as well as fees.

            I'm familiar with Horizon and observe that the CLSO 2 terms clearly do not have this in mind.

            As I said, it's your choice and there are more things to consider than just the tax but if you're going to use this, understand it. If you don't understand it, get some advice.
            Your comments concern me greatly as I have sought professional advice and I was told that despite people saying otherwise the closure opportunities are a legally binding contract and that they do provide finality in the matter. The advice caveatted that statement with IHT being unclear hence my digging for more information here. So who do I believe?

            Comment


              Originally posted by starstruck View Post
              Your comments concern me greatly as I have sought professional advice and I was told that despite people saying otherwise the closure opportunities are a legally binding contract and that they do provide finality in the matter. The advice caveatted that statement with IHT being unclear hence my digging for more information here. So who do I believe?
              In this case, your professional adviser (assuming that they properly skilled to give this advice and you properly disclose things to HMRC).

              A contract settlement is legally binding. It closes the year (for the bits that you have settled). Obviously, if you've not disclosed something, misled HMRC etc then all bets are off. They can make discovery assessments, etc. Also, it only settles things for tax purposes. It does not deal with, for example, any loan that is still outstanding. It also does not deal with anything that may happen in the future.

              I do not work with contractors. But I have seen very favourable settlements in respect of loans made many years ago (i.e. favourable in the context of today's much tougher settlement terms) and these are binding. There is no way a court would allow these ones to be changed now. As an example, have a look at this UTT decision (which is to do with VAT but similar principles apply): https://www.rpc.co.uk/perspectives/t...ment-agreement

              No offence to webberg, but he has a business to run and the more uncertainty that he can generate, the more fees he can get.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Iliketax View Post
                No offence to webberg, but he has a business to run and the more uncertainty that he can generate, the more fees he can get.
                That sentence is also true if you replace "uncertainty" with "hope".

                And therein lies the problem.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Iliketax View Post
                  A contract settlement is legally binding. It closes the year (for the bits that you have settled). Obviously, if you've not disclosed something, misled HMRC etc then all bets are off. They can make discovery assessments, etc. Also, it only settles things for tax purposes. It does not deal with, for example, any loan that is still outstanding. It also does not deal with anything that may happen in the future.
                  What about where HMRC agreed settlement with full knowledge of outstanding loans in previous years that were closed

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by vern19 View Post
                    What about where HMRC agreed settlement with full knowledge of outstanding loans in previous years that were closed
                    What, specifically, did the settlement say about those closed years? What tax did you pay in respect of those closed years?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Iliketax View Post
                      What, specifically, did the settlement say about those closed years? What tax did you pay in respect of those closed years?
                      My tax advisor settled an open year based on the understanding with HMRC that an earlier year was closed. HMRC knew about the earlier year because the liquidator of the scheme previously passed on records to HMRC.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X