BIG GROUP

[pateen]

I've been in a PCC partnership type arrangement for 5 years with AML, however only 2 of those years are where I created and had my own company in that type of scheme.

I understand however that BG will not argue for PCC schemes where you had your own company as the legal charge will be against yourself
Does this approach also apply for the years where I was involved in PCC schemes where I didn’t have my own company?

[webberg]

For further clarity, is this the case even if settlement of the tax has been agreed ?

Good question.

I would say that if you have settled AND had the loans written off, then there is nothing to declare.

If you have settled but the loan has NOT been written off, then I'm much less sure. I think in that instance, some form of protective declaration is sensible.

I'm regularly criticised for saying that the legislation that allows for relief where a loan charge arises is unclear on what happens where the loan is released AFTER 5th April 2019 and AFTER the settlement is agreed.

I believe that if the legislation is clear and no charge can arise on a loan released AFTER settlement, then HMRC should include that in their settlement contract. They do not. They resist doing that.

Until they do include such wording, I remain of the view that the law is unclear.

[jbeer]

For clarity.

If you have had loans (or other forms of credit) as part of a disguised remuneration scheme that are outstanding as at 5th April 2019, then you are legally obliged to disclose them.

We understand that there will be a check box on a SATR.

I suggest that even if you have a statement from HMRC that a return has not been required in earlier years, the existence of the loan would count as a change of circumstances and a return is probably required.

It may be that HMRC is unaware of your circumstances and miss you out in assessing. The danger is that if you decide not to declare and it later comes to light, I would expect little sympathy from the agency.

For further clarity, is this the case even if settlement of the tax has been agreed ?

[webberg]

For clarity.

If you have had loans (or other forms of credit) as part of a disguised remuneration scheme that are outstanding as at 5th April 2019, then you are legally obliged to disclose them.

We understand that there will be a check box on a SATR.

I suggest that even if you have a statement from HMRC that a return has not been required in earlier years, the existence of the loan would count as a change of circumstances and a return is probably required.

It may be that HMRC is unaware of your circumstances and miss you out in assessing. The danger is that if you decide not to declare and it later comes to light, I would expect little sympathy from the agency.

[WTFH]

I rang hmrc today and was told, can you tell us your loan amount then we can tell you how much you have to pay, as I was expecting them to tell me the loan amount.

Good luck with that then.

[Dharmin]

Don’t believe the hype.. I know someone who registered for CLSO and HMRC came back with “would you mind telling us what schemes you were involved with?”
So despite all the rumour.. it appears they don’t know everything

I rang hmrc today and was told, can you tell us your loan amount then we can tell you how much you have to pay, as I was expecting them to tell me the loan amount.

[Hero1234]

I am in

Im in too

[TonyT]

Mod edit: Joining instructions.

This started elsewhere but should be on its own.

I have two takers so far.

To clarify this BIG GROUP is ONE GROUP across ALL schemes.

It does not impact action individuals may wish to take on their own or via other groups.

Let's indulge in some speculation.

A group is formed.

It decides that there are perhaps 4 scheme "types" that are potentially caught by HMRC's present interpretations.

It knows that HMRC is not prepared to be sensible in settlement and therefore the only strategy is to defend a number of cases at Tribunal in the hope that a less than 100% victory for HMRC will force them to the table.

The group also defends to extent possible, APN claims and other spurious attempts from the agency to extract funds. This is on the basis that civil disobedience and tying up HMRC resource is an effective strategy.

That may require 5 years.

We'll allow 4 full time staff (admin/website/etc) and a panel of experts. Accommodation, telephone etc. Say £200,000 a year tops. So £1m over 5 years.

"Experts" budget perhaps £1.5m over that period. That's pretty much one average (in terms of charge out rate) tax specialist full time for 5 years.

So £2.5m over 5 years. Let's say £3m.

If the cost per individual was £10 a month for 60 months, how many are needed?

£3m/60/£10 = 5,000 people.

How many contractors impacted?

I don't know. If 100,000, then we're looking at 5% membership.

To get to that value requires some form of advertising campaign and that in turn requires some seed funding.

There are "litigation funders" out there. They work by advancing legal costs in return for a cut of a "win".

They might be interested. More likely something like this forum could run a pre funding group and effectively put up initial funds.

I reckon perhaps £25,000 to run the ads and initial letter/email/website stuff.

How many people here?

500? That's £50 each.

So the deal is:

Put up £50. Put up some of your undoubted IT expertise. Hire a temporary project director (on a contract). Ask for volunteers for a steering group (I'd be interested). Elect/appoint a steering committee.

Spend the initial money over 6 months and see what the response is and re-evaluate.

If this is a "go", membership is £10 a month for 60 months (perhaps less/more). Alternatively pay £500 day 1 and then nothing until month 61.

Make sure to get anybody who is willing from NTRT. Make sure to include some PR.

Anybody?

I am in

[Dmac]

Thanks

The have mutually exclusive outcomes but can be run in parallel until a decision is required.

Settlement is on HMRC terms and once the debate on numbers is over, you will be given a contract to sign. If you sign - and it's not an obligation but a choice - then you have taken the terms and no manner of subsequent court decision or change of law or other agreement with HMRC can impact that. (I'm assuming that there is no untruthfulness involved in reaching the agreement).

Big Group resolution plan believes that the terms offered by HMRC are outside legislation and judicial principles and our members are prepared to run that position.

If it is correct, then the amount of tax due will be less than you are asked for under HMRC settlement.

If it is incorrect, then the tax due will be much the same as HMRC suggest but there will be additional interest (3% pa roughly) and HMRC may claim grounds for penalty, although we think that these are weak.

There is no guarantee that it will work.

We are not therefore in the game of creating a nuisance with HMRC but we have a plan and we are executing it.

Many thanks Webberg. Whatever route people choose (or both) I hope you at Big Group are successful in your efforts, even if (as a probable settler) I may not personally benefit.

[webberg]

I think I know vaguely what Big Group are trying to do for those who have signed up (I fully accept that the strategy is shared only with full members). However for anyone looking to settle (either on their own or with the help of a tax consultant) ahead of LC19, what would be the benefit of signing up to BG?

I’m all for supporting a cause in giving HMRC a bloody nose and creating noise around the issue to drum up public awareness (and sympathy), but if a person settles and BG is successful in it’s strategy, it will not benefit anyone who has paid up already.

Do I understand correctly?

Are the two (settle, or BG) mutually exclusive?

The have mutually exclusive outcomes but can be run in parallel until a decision is required.

Settlement is on HMRC terms and once the debate on numbers is over, you will be given a contract to sign. If you sign - and it's not an obligation but a choice - then you have taken the terms and no manner of subsequent court decision or change of law or other agreement with HMRC can impact that. (I'm assuming that there is no untruthfulness involved in reaching the agreement).

Big Group resolution plan believes that the terms offered by HMRC are outside legislation and judicial principles and our members are prepared to run that position.

If it is correct, then the amount of tax due will be less than you are asked for under HMRC settlement.

If it is incorrect, then the tax due will be much the same as HMRC suggest but there will be additional interest (3% pa roughly) and HMRC may claim grounds for penalty, although we think that these are weak.

There is no guarantee that it will work.

We are not therefore in the game of creating a nuisance with HMRC but we have a plan and we are executing it.