BIG GROUP

[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.

[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.

[LandRover]

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?

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.

[starstruck]

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.

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?

[webberg]

Now we know the rangers case, what sort of confidence level you are quoting?

If I'm taking a plane say from A to B and pilot said that he is 65% confident to reach to destination (B), will you accept the risk and take the plane or you look for another option to reach to your destination i.e. train but longer hours to reach to "B" but with very high confidence level.

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.

[Safe]

First LC19 is NOT settlement. It's a tax charge on loans and DOES NOT settle any outstanding HMRC enquiries or the tax position of loans received in earlier years. Consequently, this is irrelevant to the questions asked.

Do I think our plan will result in less tax paid than under the CLSO 2 offer? Yes.

How confident? We quote members 65%. We thought this pre Rangers.

Is that confidence level based on hard facts? Partly, but to a degree it's a question of opinion and experience.

We have said since Day 1, we have no guaranteed answer and certainly legislation and HMRC trying to write out of history their errors does not help.,

Now we know the rangers case, what sort of confidence level you are quoting?

If I'm taking a plane say from A to B and pilot said that he is 65% confident to reach to destination (B), will you accept the risk and take the plane or you look for another option to reach to your destination i.e. train but longer hours to reach to "B" but with very high confidence level.

[webberg]

webberg,

Do you believe that you can achieve a better financial outcome* for your members than either CLSO2 or LC19?

How confident are you of that?

See if you can answer in few words (eg. yes and very).

* Just to be clear, by better outcome, I mean people end up paying less than they would under CLSO2 or LC19.

First LC19 is NOT settlement. It's a tax charge on loans and DOES NOT settle any outstanding HMRC enquiries or the tax position of loans received in earlier years. Consequently, this is irrelevant to the questions asked.

Do I think our plan will result in less tax paid than under the CLSO 2 offer? Yes.

How confident? We quote members 65%. We thought this pre Rangers.

Is that confidence level based on hard facts? Partly, but to a degree it's a question of opinion and experience.

We have said since Day 1, we have no guaranteed answer and certainly legislation and HMRC trying to write out of history their errors does not help.,

[Safe]

webberg,

Do you believe that you can achieve a better financial outcome* for your members than either CLSO2 or LC19?

How confident are you of that?

See if you can answer in few words (eg. yes and very).

* Just to be clear, by better outcome, I mean people end up paying less than they would under CLSO2 or LC19.

In engineering, there is a term that is called "confidence level". If something has 95%- 98% confidence level even with 2-5% of not getting the results, still good to go with that. However if % drops to 80% or below then that needs to be mitigated against other options you have which will give you better confidence level (results). It might be expensive but you are sure that you'll get it done and get the results.

[stonehenge]

webberg,

Do you believe that you can achieve a better financial outcome* for your members than either CLSO2 or LC19?

How confident are you of that?

See if you can answer in few words (eg. yes and very).

* Just to be clear, by better outcome, I mean people end up paying less than they would under CLSO2 or LC19.

[webberg]

Maybe post on the BG forum too?
Been a few comments about lack of posts on there compared to here recently.

You are absolutely correct and that position will be remedied over this weekend.