BIG GROUP

[Invisiblehand]

May I interject...there are no guarantees in life except that we all dies and will pay tax:-)

What do you want to hear?

Yes its guaranteed? Look the scheme providers stated the schemes were backed by Tax Counsel, and many fell for that useless guarantee.

Imo, better to take this offline, contact people directly or deal with HMRC yourself.

I think he / she just wants to get a better understanding of the potential risks. For a very long time people have simply been saying "Join BG it's the only option". I'd argue that questions like this are better answered here than anywhere else to help give potential new members the fullest possible information before making a decision. After all, you know a lot more now than when you first signed up.

[ConfusedEasily]

I think he / she just wants to get a better understanding of the potential risks. For a very long time people have simply been saying "Join BG it's the only option". I'd argue that questions like this are better answered here than anywhere else to help give potential new members the fullest possible information before making a decision. After all, you know a lot more now than when you first signed up.

I think, in fairness, that BG has a strategy and a possibility of success which, they acknowledge, is based on their opinion.

If you want to fight then BG would appear to be the only game in town.
If you want to settle then there are many that could offer help in that direction - webberg (BG) and phil@dswtres for example.

[starstruck]

May I interject...there are no guarantees in life except that we all dies and will pay tax:-)

Webberg just said join BG and your worst case is what you pay now (100 in his example) and your best case is much less. His example portrays it very simply as a no lose situation.
There is no mention of you perhaps being worse off if it does not succeed. So a perfectly reasonable questions is does BG guarantee the current settlement terms should their plan fail?

[ConfusedEasily]

Webberg just said join BG and your worst case is what you pay now (100 in his example) and your best case is much less. His example portrays it very simply as a no lose situation.
There is no mention of you perhaps being worse off if it does not succeed. So a perfectly reasonable questions is does BG guarantee the current settlement terms should their plan fail?

Which is a fairly pointless question as nobody is going to guarantee that.

You have to decide if 65%, and an unknowable future, is good enough for you. Avoidance schemes were never for the faint-hearted; you need balls of steel and deep pockets and Julian Ghosh as your QC to be even vaguely sure of the outcome.

Unfortunately, none of us had a crystal ball to realise that we needed such attributes back in the day and to expect BG, or anyone for that matter, to have one now is ludicrous.

[starstruck]

Which is a fairly pointless question as nobody is going to guarantee that.

Bingo! That was my whole point. Webberg is happy to make these statements:

"you can go from A to B on a plane and it will cost you 100 [I assume this is settlement].
Or you can go from A to B on a train which may take longer but might only cost you 50 [I assume this is joining Big Group] although with a chance (35% in our view) that the price could still be 100. [I assume this is if Big Group fails]"

So he is saying that join BG and you will be no worse off than you are now. I beg to differ ... I would put forward at least the possibility that you join BG, it doesn't go as planned, and you end up worse off, e.g. after a lost opportunity to settle.

I am not against webberg or BG, but it all sounds too good to be true and I fear for people that might end up in a worse situation, of course some people have to "believe" as they have no choice, they cannot afford to settle but others have a choice and they need to understand the facts.

Am just trying to provide some sensible balance here.

I wanted to know if webberg could guarantee what he is saying. Considering the severity of the situation I don't see it as at all unreasonable or controversial.

[ConfusedEasily]

Bingo! That was my whole point. Webberg is happy to make these statements:

"you can go from A to B on a plane and it will cost you 100 [I assume this is settlement].
Or you can go from A to B on a train which may take longer but might only cost you 50 [I assume this is joining Big Group] although with a chance (35% in our view) that the price could still be 100. [I assume this is if Big Group fails]"

So he is saying that join BG and you will be no worse off than you are now. I beg to differ ... I would put forward at least the possibility that you join BG, it doesn't go as planned, and you end up worse off, e.g. after a lost opportunity to settle.

I agree - nobody can know what the other side of the BG approach looks like.
It's a gamble.

[BrownOwl]

This isn't directly related to Big Group but would be interesting if you could fit it in with the analogies above:

Was there ever clarfication as to whether HMRC will pay the settlement opportunity (CLSO2) payments back if a scheme wins in court or the 2019 legislation is successfully challenged?

It wouldn't be much for HMRC to add that sort of clause to the agreements if they are confident they always win.

It would be a good pointer to me that they haven't just introduced the settlement opportunity to nudge people into paying up voluntarily and coming back for more in the future once you've admitted liability.

[Iliketax]

As I said, we have not changed our view since Rangers. We should increase our confidence but in light of the legislation coming out from HMRC and the constant "nudge" and bullying, we have not.

Your analogy is flawed.

A better one might be that you can go from A to B on a plane and it will cost you 100.

Or you can go from A to B on a train which may take longer but might only cost you 50 although with a chance (35% in our view) that the price could still be 100.

You have to make a judgement call.

Just so I can understand it, you are saying that if someone's bill is £100,000 then doing whatever BG is doing means they pay £50,000 (plus your fees) 65% of the time or £100,000 (plus your fees) 35% of the time. Is that right?

There is no risk at all that you might end up paying more than £100,000?

And you won't say what the idea is? So how can anyone make a judgement?

Ah, just found this thread that is helpful in making a judgement: https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...following.html

From my perspective, if a client of mine wants to go to the FTT and they have the strongest set of facts and they tie in with the policy objective of the legislation, the chances of success are no more than 75%. That's the best case. To go against the policy objective where (in HMRC's and the tribunal's mind) there is clear tax avoidance reduces the chances of success hugely.

If any idea to try to get around the April 2019 loan charge involves taking any active steps (other than reporting / litigating / settling) then in my view the chance of success goes down way more, and the risks go up hugely (GAAR penalties anyone)?

[Invisiblehand]

So he is saying that join BG and you will be no worse off than you are now. I beg to differ ...

I agree.

It seems that one of Big Groups strengths is numbers. If you're managing settlement for £10 million as opposed to £10 you are logically more likely to get a deal. The problem is that so many people on here appear to have signed up that they've lost their ability to think about this rationally and seem to be just shepherding new members towards Big Group because it's in their benefit to do so. Additionally, the firm that manage BG benefit commercially for the long game. Something which should be taken into consideration.

[webberg]

That assumes HMRC will settle on the same terms as they are now if your strategy fails. The 100 air fare may have increased by the time the train has derailed; it might have to be a boat at 150 by then. Are you guaranteeing members current settlement terms if the strategy fails?

Of course not.

How would that even be possible?