BIG GROUP

[DotasScandal]

However we ran into issues because there is an advertising and marketing outfit called BIG GROUP and rather than change the name completely we simply added WTT to the front.

With all due respect for your work, I am concerned this may send the wrong message, or rather an ambiguous message to those not familiar with you.
"Perception is reality", as they say!

Yes a mutual would have been better and perhaps in due course it will become a mutual, but to get this up and growing, it needs leadership and not a committee.

Agree 100%

[webberg]

I understand your quandary Webberg, but as the BIG GROUP concept has changed somewhat, from a committee to a commercial entity and that I am mostly Non DOTAS I shall defer membership for now.

I am sure that the goals will still be achieved and do think this is the best form of action against HMRC.

I understand completely.

Don't however confuse the two issues.

The commercial nature of the enterprise is a device to get it rolling as quickly as possible. As mentioned it may be that it reverts to its original intention as soon as we have a suitable committee in place.

The expansion of the remit to non DOTAS has a number of practical issues. I have expanded on this in a separate thread and would welcome comments there.

[jbryce]

I share some of your concerns.

There have been others on these forums who have sold their 'wares' and taken a lot of flak as a result, some of it justified. I can think of accusations such as "ambulance chaser" being thrown around.

The more general accusation was that anyone, or any company needing to come on these forums to advertise their services or to drum up business may not be the best qualified to represent those on here needing representation.

I don't pretend to have the answer, otherwise I wouldn't be one of the people in this mess. I'm only pointing out that there are some of us with a level of discomfort and cynicism build up from our experiences.

One of the ambulance chasers required me to pay 15% up front to help me avoid the hefty fines that were coming my way, although couldn't actually outline how these penalties would be applied. I'm sure other have spoken to this guy. My accountant spoke to another - well represented on here - and was amazed how little understanding he had of tax law.

The Big Group is looking for £50 pcm - about the same as a Sky subscription - to get us up and running and with a decent chance of impacting the outcome. At the very least it will offer some push back against HMRC.

I don't care if it's a commercial group - it just needs to get up and running. My accountant has done some due diligence on webberg and was impressed.

[webberg]

With all due respect for your work, I am concerned this may send the wrong message, or rather an ambiguous message to those not familiar with you.
"Perception is reality", as they say!

I had concerns about the message as well. At the end of the day however we choose action rather than inaction.

We could have stuck with BIG GROUP and risked a slap from the marketing agency.

We could have picked another name completely - and we had a few - as examples CUT (Contractors against Unfair Tax), and we could have set them up with website, constitution etc.

We thought about this a lot but ultimately the first was not worth the risk of a false start and the second risked accusations of being opaque and less than honest.

Therefore we decided to be open and transparent and include out commercial name as a means of avoiding both the above.

I fully understand that some may consider the ethos has changed because it's now part of a commercial business but balancing getting it up and running against several months of debate and prevarication, we went for get it moving.

I'm not hiding the commercial aspects - I posted last week the change in approach.

Whilst I'm not about to share costings etc here, the fees we collect will be used to pay for the various professionals we need to engage (insolvency, legal, Isle of Man legal, etc) to provide useful material and information and to fill in the detail on the full exit plan we're developing, as well as deal with the tax issues.

If we get less than a critical number of joiners, this is a loss making exercise. This is my commercial risk.

A mutual body approach could not do this. Such a group would have to be in funds in order to engage the necessary suppliers and this may have taken a fair time.

[webberg]

One of the ambulance chasers required me to pay 15% up front to help me avoid the hefty fines that were coming my way, although couldn't actually outline how these penalties would be applied. I'm sure other have spoken to this guy. My accountant spoke to another - well represented on here - and was amazed how little understanding he had of tax law.

The Big Group is looking for £50 pcm - about the same as a Sky subscription - to get us up and running and with a decent chance of impacting the outcome. At the very least it will offer some push back against HMRC.

I don't care if it's a commercial group - it just needs to get up and running. My accountant has done some due diligence on webberg and was impressed.

I'm blushing - so thank you.

To correct you slightly, BG is £50 (plus VAT) to join and £15 (plus VAT) per calendar month.

If you or your agent want to check out my bona vides or take references, I have nothing to hide.

[MercladUK]

I had concerns about the message as well. At the end of the day however we choose action rather than inaction.

We could have stuck with BIG GROUP and risked a slap from the marketing agency.

We could have picked another name completely - and we had a few - as examples CUT (Contractors against Unfair Tax), and we could have set them up with website, constitution etc.

We thought about this a lot but ultimately the first was not worth the risk of a false start and the second risked accusations of being opaque and less than honest.

Therefore we decided to be open and transparent and include out commercial name as a means of avoiding both the above.

I fully understand that some may consider the ethos has changed because it's now part of a commercial business but balancing getting it up and running against several months of debate and prevarication, we went for get it moving.

I'm not hiding the commercial aspects - I posted last week the change in approach.

Whilst I'm not about to share costings etc here, the fees we collect will be used to pay for the various professionals we need to engage (insolvency, legal, Isle of Man legal, etc) to provide useful material and information and to fill in the detail on the full exit plan we're developing, as well as deal with the tax issues.

If we get less than a critical number of joiners, this is a loss making exercise. This is my commercial risk.

A mutual body approach could not do this. Such a group would have to be in funds in order to engage the necessary suppliers and this may have taken a fair time.

Webberg, your credentials are excellent and the basis of the concept for big group is also excellent and needed....

I was hoping that the group would be more on the lines of NTRT group so that the collective can own the fight as opposed to a single entity.

Big Group will succeed it has to...

[webberg]

Webberg, your credentials are excellent and the basis of the concept for big group is also excellent and needed....

I was hoping that the group would be more on the lines of NTRT group so that the collective can own the fight as opposed to a single entity.

Big Group will succeed it has to...

I'm blushing again.

I explained why BG cannot replicate NTRT.

The latter had ONE issue and was driven by an individual willing to work for nothing. That individual has done a great job and remains committed.

With BG covering many schemes and many issues, tax and non tax, finding one individual was always going to be difficult and one who works for nothing, more so.

I think therefore NTRT is an exception to the rule rather than a template.

[NotAmused]

Big Group and legal defence

I can see how 'Big Group' could be valuable to those of us who don't have a tax accountant or those who just want independent advice at a reasonable cost.

However, in its current form would signing up to 'Big Group' be providing me with legal protection i.e. if HMRC decides to take me to tax tribunal would it be mounting the defense? To my mind this is the astronomical cost which needs a group response.

[webberg]

I can see how 'Big Group' could be valuable to those of us who don't have a tax accountant or those who just want independent advice at a reasonable cost.

However, in its current form would signing up to 'Big Group' be providing me with legal protection i.e. if HMRC decides to take me to tax tribunal would it be mounting the defense? To my mind this is the astronomical cost which needs a group response.

A reasonable question to which the answer is "it depends".

It depends on numbers, when the litigation funding was required, what shape that litigation took, whether it was worth even fighting if a similar case had already been struck down.

If we assume that you need £250k to go to FTT (perhaps a bit on the low side).

BG needs perhaps 1,000 people for 24 months to do that on its own based on current pricing.

A provider group might have 300 members (not seen a group with this many)? With no long build up of a fighting fund, that means each members finding £833 in 2 years time.

So, you have to weigh £15 a month for 24 months against a single £800+ in two years.

Both have similar risks, the main one being lack of numbers means a higher individual cost.

As to whether BG works only for those unrepresented, I think that's a fallacy. BG is a single focus operation. It does not do tax returns or other business tax. It looks at settling the current dispute. As such it has knowledge and expertise that a general practitioner either lacks or can acquire at a cost of several dozen chargeable hours.

There will be those who sit on the side lines and don't contribute in any way, information, views, financially and hope to benefit from the final result. If that result is a victory in Court, that would have been a brilliant strategy.

If the result is a loss in Court, arguably still good as no fees have been spent but you have had no input to the end result.

If the result is a negotiated settlement, you are excluded and back into one of the options above. There is an argument that HMRC will apply the same treatment to everybody, so that if BG gets a favourable treatment, all will get it. That is NOT true in a contract settlement. So there's a risk that it may not happen.

This is a calculated risk that only you can decide.

[webberg]

Questions, answers and webinars

"As you will all be aware Big Group has now technically been live for three days. Much of the discussion to date has centered on two aspects:

• Non-DOTAS
• The commercial structure.

Non-DOTAS membership

I expect BIG GROUP to evolve into a platform for non DOTAS schemes. The more immediate need is for those DOTAS schemes as they attract APN’s and consequently understanding them enough to provide grounds for challenge is urgent.

This required a focus on DOTAS schemes and left little time for non DOTAS. It is however clear that many of you have moved from one to the other and as such BIG GROUP would be failing you if it ignored the non DOTAS scheme.

We will therefore add a non DOTAS scheme data collation and analysis process to the group, along with a dedicated forum. I have been clear that I do NOT have a settled strategy for non DOTAS schemes. Therefore we will not be levying additional charges where you have both DOTAS and non DOTAS schemes. In the event that we do develop a strategy for non DOTAS schemes, we will publish the likely timing and if necessary, cost and you decide at that time whether to continue with the non DOTAS elements.

I would say therefore that if you have both scheme types, join.

If you have just non DOTAS, wait before joining later this year.

Commercial Basis of Big Group

Some users have noted that the change in structure from a self-administered ‘help group’ to an established action group managed by my firm could affect the collaborative ideals experienced through membership of projects such as NTRT.

It is important that it is understood that Big Group will always remain a collaborative environment for users of contractor schemes to have a collective voice in challenging revenue policy.

At its heart the action group is a forum space for members to communicate in a confidential way to establish a common strategy to the ongoing enquiries. This is to be supplemented by regular webinars and continual support from my firm for members to suggest and scrutinise the efficacy of potential strategies within the confines of a confidential discussion, tempered by professional tax support.

In this way Big Group forms a similar structure to NTRT, the only difference is that a commercial firm sits within the structure to allow continuous momentum to be maintained along with a source of expert opinion

This momentum is perhaps best characterised in the example above. A decision as to the efficacy for Non-DOTAS members to join has been decided and the forum changed to suit within 24 hours. This flexibility and reaction speed is essential if Big Group is to be successful in the long term.

An example of the collaborative resource to be used by Big Group is the use of regular webinars to summarise and document points raised in the main forum space. This will then be recorded and uploaded in order that later joiners can review historic membership.

Whilst these webinars must remain private to members to ensure confidentiality it may, at this stage, be useful to use this resource to answer member questions on how Big Group will run.

I therefore propose to run a webinar to answer questions that any prospective Big Group members may have. This webinar is scheduled for Thursday 18th June at 20:00. Should members have any direct questions that they would like explaining please feel free to PM me and I will respond fully on the webinar.

Registration for the Webinar can be completed here: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/reg...81301095277314

As above I have always intended for this group to be structured in a way which best suits the members that sit within it and most importantly that it remains transparent. This is, without a doubt, still the case, but in order for the momentum to be maintained in the early stages I feel that a dedicated resource is essential.