BIG GROUP

[MyxALot]

If you've not got a CTD yet, I suggest looking into it for your loan. you're too late.

FTFY

[starstruck]

However I said that about NTRT and was proved wrong.

Can you clarify what happened with NTRT?

[webberg]

Can you clarify what happened with NTRT?

NTRT and its spin off TAA is not part of or connected with Big Group.

We have no information on the present status but I think there are threads in the forum dedicated to them?

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

I'm not sure that I have a "cause" other than to be honest with those who might become clients.

Many contractors have had years of people misleading them, perhaps even lying to them. When we set out on this journey we decided that was not us. We decided that it was better to face the truth and deal with it.

HMRC's settlement process is deeply flawed and technically inept. I can show you exactly how and why. I'm pretty sure that most of the tax professionals who come on here could do the same.

The problem however is that even where individual HMRC officers admit that their position is wrong in law, they are obliged to hold the line at fear of losing their jobs. They hide behind the alleged reason that in order to be fair to all, they have a one size fits all answer. It's not fair. It's not in accordance with the law, but it's something they defend.

Behind the scenes we have met with senior HMRC people in front of MPs and discussed this. They admit that they have insufficient information on many situations and that their analysis has never had judicial sanction, but insist they have to maintain a united front.

It's too frustrating for words.

So, I accept that some professionals look to their fee income first and spin things out, but please do not tar us all with that brush.

No accusations or aspersions was meant onto you or the Big Group. I also did not realise my use of the word "cause" was inappropriate and would cause offence. I value your input to my questions and apologise for any offence caused. None was meant towards you.

[sbar99920]

WTT membership

Hi there,

Am a bit confused. Paid my £200 and the first years subscription up front. Now, in previous posts and messages from webberg, I made the assumption that I could join and get some advice and strategies on my particular solution. I have posted some questions on the forum and have been told that individual advice is around £600 + VAT. Seems I have access to a forum where I cannot get individual advice pertinent to my situation without more fees? What about some more of the decent and general advice given by webberg for free here and other messages. Webberg does work for WTT right?

Of course I understand the opting in bit, but how can I make a decision to opt in without advice in the first place?

Maybe I have just gotten the wrong end of the stick? Wouldn't be the first time and I apologise in advance if I am incorrect in my understanding of what it means to be a WTT member.

cheers

[BrownOwl]

Hi there,

Am a bit confused. Paid my £200 and the first years subscription up front. Now, in previous posts and messages from webberg, I made the assumption that I could join and get some advice and strategies on my particular solution. I have posted some questions on the forum and have been told that individual advice is around £600 + VAT. Seems I have access to a forum where I cannot get individual advice pertinent to my situation without more fees? What about some more of the decent and general advice given by webberg for free here and other messages. Webberg does work for WTT right?

Of course I understand the opting in bit, but how can I make a decision to opt in without advice in the first place?

Maybe I have just gotten the wrong end of the stick? Wouldn't be the first time and I apologise in advance if I am incorrect in my understanding of what it means to be a WTT member.

cheers

Did you get any quotes off other tax advisers for the individual advice?

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

NO.

The Supreme Court said.

Money went from employer to you = taxable
Money went from you to trust = no income tax, IHT?
Money went from trust to you as a loan = no income tax, no IHT
Loan has to be repaid = IHT?

No double tax.

Sorry for going around in circles on this but it is doing my brain in.

Surely points two and three are removed / nullified the moment HMRC charge PAYE because now the money was taxed as income. The only point left is the first one and HMRC (as in my case) already charged me PAYE on the money.

What HMRC is therefore saying (in my case) is they are using point 1 and 4 (because of my "released" income (loan)). I guess HMRC rewrite the rules and they can pick and choose as they like.

This is just me again. You don't need to responds to this because I'm not going to get this no-logic.

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

Hi there,

Am a bit confused. Paid my £200 and the first years subscription up front. Now, in previous posts and messages from webberg, I made the assumption that I could join and get some advice and strategies on my particular solution. I have posted some questions on the forum and have been told that individual advice is around £600 + VAT. Seems I have access to a forum where I cannot get individual advice pertinent to my situation without more fees? What about some more of the decent and general advice given by webberg for free here and other messages. Webberg does work for WTT right?

Of course I understand the opting in bit, but how can I make a decision to opt in without advice in the first place?

Maybe I have just gotten the wrong end of the stick? Wouldn't be the first time and I apologise in advance if I am incorrect in my understanding of what it means to be a WTT member.

cheers

Hi,

From my own experience I think you can rest easy, they are not giving all advice (help) away for free. I will be extremely happy if I'm proved wrong but hey its not happened yet.

These forums (the reason why I'm on here), is to warn people about what happened to me, to share my (free) information and hopefully get (free) advice back in turn.

I've been in contact with mister Webb at WTT for a while now and waiting on them getting back to me with their free opinion (advice) on my situation.

But to be clear. The understanding I have with them is, mister Webb will look at the documents I sent them and get back to me at some point to let me know if they think I have a case against HMRC for breach of their own contract. That is it. His free opinion with no obligation.

Should I then decide to go ahead, I will sell the last bit of blood HMRC have not taken yet (I settled) to pay for WTT's (or someone else's) advice and help in taking HMRC on. I am not able do that myself, I will need professional advice and help.

I'm hoping (think) there are others in the same boat as I, that we can share the costs (Big Group ?) of fighting the IHT charge. In my opinion all contractors are going to be in the same boat at some point regarding IHT on the release of their loans unless they paid it back but that is another story which I'm not touching.

So in my case, I'm getting a free first consultation . . . . . some day.

[Iliketax]

Sorry for going around in circles on this but it is doing my brain in.

Surely points two and three are removed / nullified the moment HMRC charge PAYE because now the money was taxed as income. The only point left is the first one and HMRC (as in my case) already charged me PAYE on the money.

What HMRC is therefore saying (in my case) is they are using point 1 and 4 (because of my "released" income (loan)). I guess HMRC rewrite the rules and they can pick and choose as they like.

This is just me again. You don't need to responds to this because I'm not going to get this no-logic.

I have no idea what your arrangements were. But there are effectively two questions:

1. Did you get any earnings from your employment? If so, that is subject to income tax.

2. Is there are a discretionary trust and, if so, did the value of its assets go down? If so (subject to the detailed rules that determine the quantum) IHT will be due.

These two questions are not mutually exclusive. So just because you answer "yes" to the first it does not automatically mean that you must answer "no" to the second.

In relation to the bit you quoted from earlier, I've added some bits in red:

The Supreme Court said. Presumably in the Rangers case

Money went from employer to you = taxable
Money went from you to trust = no income tax, IHT? First, the Supreme Court never actually said that 'money went from you to the trust' - it went direct from the employer to the trust. Also, it did not mention IHT in this context (as it never said that this step occurred)
Money went from trust to you as a loan = no income tax, no IHT The Supreme Court did not mention IHT in this context
Loan has to be repaid = IHT? The Supreme Court did not mention IHT in this context

The only comment that the Supreme Court made about IHT in this case is that "the loans would be repayable out of the footballer’s estate on death, thereby reducing its value for Inheritance Tax purposes" (and it mentioned something similar a couple of times). The reason it did not mention IHT in relation to the trust is because the tax case was never about IHT.

[HMRC made Atlas Shrug]

I have no idea what your arrangements were. But there are effectively two questions:

1. Did you get any earnings from your employment? If so, that is subject to income tax.

2. Is there are a discretionary trust and, if so, did the value of its assets go down? If so (subject to the detailed rules that determine the quantum) IHT will be due.

These two questions are not mutually exclusive. So just because you answer "yes" to the first it does not automatically mean that you must answer "no" to the second.

In relation to the bit you quoted from earlier, I've added some bits in red:



The only comment that the Supreme Court made about IHT in this case is that "the loans would be repayable out of the footballer’s estate on death, thereby reducing its value for Inheritance Tax purposes" (and it mentioned something similar a couple of times). The reason it did not mention IHT in relation to the trust is because the tax case was never about IHT.

I'm out of my depth here so I'm using logic.

It is stated against points 2 and 3 there can be no income tax, correct?

By my reasoning, once HMRC charged PAYE on the money as income, something listed as a no-go against points 2 and 3 (?), surely a line should be put through points 2 and 3 where PAYE was paid ? I.e. not use points 2 or 3 to charge IHT.

Even more shocking / disgusting about what the people working at HMRC are doing regarding IHT. In my case HMRC included the release of my loans in their own settlement agreement and HMRC also included IHT in the same agreement. HMRC specifically stated the IHT due is as listed in the schedule HMRC provided as part of their settlement agreement. I can only conclude HMRC decided at the time no IHT is due on the release of my loan because, HMRC did not put any IHT due on their schedule. HMRC specifically stated I was not allowed to make any changes to the agreement, it is 100% HMRC's one sided contract.

But now after I paid the PAYE, they are breaking their own contract by trying to charge me IHT on my loan I released as part of their agreement, on which they already did the IHT calculations !?

OK HMRC may choose not to use logic but this is a breach of their own contract.