BIG GROUP

[webberg]

Hi Webberg, I have a quick question. I understand one of the goals of BG is to negotiate a better settlement with HMRC, but for those of us who don't think we did anything wrong won't going down the avenue of pushing for improved settlement limit/remove our power to argue that they are wrong to demand money from us ?? Won't HMRC see it as a weakness ?

HMRC think (apparently) that although you have not done anything "wrong" (see previous posts of mine on the issue of legal/illegal, right/wrong, which I'm not going to repeat here), the correct or better interpretation of what you did produces a tax liability.

The arbiter of that dispute will eventually be a Court.

That process will take a decent amount of time and cost an indecent amount of money for all parties involved.

There are groups around that have this route in mind and are perhaps quite well advanced in terms of the process.

In the meantime, engaging with HMRC to discuss their analysis and perhaps others, should be seen as a parallel process. Litigation and negotiation are not "either/or" but rather a prudent and sensible way to engage HMRC in the resolution of the situation.

In my experience having twin tracks to the same goal does not weaken either.

[TheHat]

HMRC think (apparently) that although you have not done anything "wrong" (see previous posts of mine on the issue of legal/illegal, right/wrong, which I'm not going to repeat here), the correct or better interpretation of what you did produces a tax liability.

The arbiter of that dispute will eventually be a Court.

That process will take a decent amount of time and cost an indecent amount of money for all parties involved.

There are groups around that have this route in mind and are perhaps quite well advanced in terms of the process.

In the meantime, engaging with HMRC to discuss their analysis and perhaps others, should be seen as a parallel process. Litigation and negotiation are not "either/or" but rather a prudent and sensible way to engage HMRC in the resolution of the situation.

In my experience having twin tracks to the same goal does not weaken either.

So, Webberg, your vision of the BG does not rule out the litigation route, or joining forces with others that are "well advanced" down that route?

I wasn't able to attend the Webinar, so you may have covered this topic.

[webberg]

So, Webberg, your vision of the BG does not rule out the litigation route, or joining forces with others that are "well advanced" down that route?

I wasn't able to attend the Webinar, so you may have covered this topic.

I did cover it and the version that is on the website also discusses this issue.

It's worth a few lines here though.

BG will avoid litigation on the substantive issues of any particular scheme. There are groups around who are already committed to this route and hopefully are making progress.

It is likely however that some issues will arise that may require some form of litigation, or more properly perhaps, clarification at the direction of a judge, and where this serves the wider purpose of moving HMRC's analysis, this will be supported.

Without being an exhaustive list, I think that this may involve issues on discovery, whether proper process has been followed, access to information from third parties, Follower Notices, etc.

Where a litigation on a scheme is going ahead and BG is aware of it and able to assist with knowledge or perhaps a small contribution to costs (massively dependent upon NUMBERS) then we will join in IF and only IF the points at stake will contribute towards the final settlement.

BG is seeking discussions with leaders of scheme groups. Some have been had, some we're waiting for responses on. BG will seek discussions with those advisers active in the contractor sector. If providers are still around, we will try to engage with them.

This is a numbers game and hundreds are better than dozens, and thousands better than hundreds.

[DotasScandal]

Let me repeat that:

This is a numbers game and hundreds are better than dozens, and thousands better than hundreds.

[bstar1]

I did cover it and the version that is on the website also discusses this issue.

It's worth a few lines here though.

BG will avoid litigation on the substantive issues of any particular scheme. There are groups around who are already committed to this route and hopefully are making progress.

It is likely however that some issues will arise that may require some form of litigation, or more properly perhaps, clarification at the direction of a judge, and where this serves the wider purpose of moving HMRC's analysis, this will be supported.

Without being an exhaustive list, I think that this may involve issues on discovery, whether proper process has been followed, access to information from third parties, Follower Notices, etc.

Where a litigation on a scheme is going ahead and BG is aware of it and able to assist with knowledge or perhaps a small contribution to costs (massively dependent upon NUMBERS) then we will join in IF and only IF the points at stake will contribute towards the final settlement.

BG is seeking discussions with leaders of scheme groups. Some have been had, some we're waiting for responses on. BG will seek discussions with those advisers active in the contractor sector. If providers are still around, we will try to engage with them.

This is a numbers game and hundreds are better than dozens, and thousands better than hundreds.

"BG is seeking discussions with leaders of scheme groups. Some have been had"

Could I ask how the results of this has been so far..

[webberg]

"BG is seeking discussions with leaders of scheme groups. Some have been had"

Could I ask how the results of this has been so far..

Those who have engaged with us have been positive with their leaders recommending BG as a viable option.

Some have yet to respond to invitations for a chat.

None have been negative.

[bstar1]

Those who have engaged with us have been positive with their leaders recommending BG as a viable option.

Some have yet to respond to invitations for a chat.

None have been negative.

Would (or has this been considered) the BG group now or in the future go into coalition with another group in there name with a newly appointed leader?

My point, group rep dynamics could change in the future how will this be managed...voting? has anything like this been considered?

[webberg]

Would (or has this been considered) the BG group now or in the future go into coalition with another group in there name with a newly appointed leader?

My point, group rep dynamics could change in the future how will this be managed...voting? has anything like this been considered?

Yes it would be considered. If the facts change then the response has to change.

However the facts would have to change materially before the strategy of BG would be considered invalid and in my opinion I can't see that happening for a few years.

Part of the ethos is to bring together as many people as possible, whether affiliated with another group or not, in order to achieve the objective. Whether that be via a formal alliance, joint strategy, merging of members, or whatever, the point is to focus on the objective.

BG will have in due course (next month) a panel of contractors to call upon for views and opinions. Not democratic but a guide.

[bstar1]

Yes it would be considered. If the facts change then the response has to change.

However the facts would have to change materially before the strategy of BG would be considered invalid and in my opinion I can't see that happening for a few years.

Part of the ethos is to bring together as many people as possible, whether affiliated with another group or not, in order to achieve the objective. Whether that be via a formal alliance, joint strategy, merging of members, or whatever, the point is to focus on the objective.

BG will have in due course (next month) a panel of contractors to call upon for views and opinions. Not democratic but a guide.

Who and how will the panel of contractors be decided upon.

[snatchandgrab]

Re:Submission of DO3 form

Hi Ive submitted the DO3 form this evening via email but didn't receive any form of email acknowledgement from HMRC.

Have others here who have submitted the form had the same experience of no receipt / confo?

I'm just keen to check with he deadline being tomorrow?

thanks