BIG GROUP

[malvolio]

Are you planning on making it secret forever? Or just waiting for the time to be right to jump out of the cupboard and yell surprise?

No, I'm trying to explain why the professionals don't splatter their plans all over a public board and have gone to some effort to keep their side of the equation secret until it is ready. Sorry if that's too difficult for you.

And FWIW I'm not involved in Big Group in any way, nor do I need to be.

[Invisiblehand]

No, I'm trying to explain why the professionals don't splatter their plans all over a public board and have gone to some effort to keep their side of the equation secret until it is ready. Sorry if that's too difficult for you.

I appreciate you helping me out like that. really, I'm most grateful. You would have made a great teacher.

[webberg]

Our plan is rolling now. Over the next few months I'm sure it will become more visible but for the moment the parties who are impacted, BG clients, HMRC and sometimes the client's agent, are the only ones "in the know".

This is right and proper and it's how firms work.

If details come into the public arena, we will of course comment if appropriate.

[webberg]

In defense of Big Group.

The concept that created the group and which sustains it, remains today what it was at the outset.

It's a group of people who are in generally the same position and who are looking for a resolution to their situation that is fair and reasonable.

That is not easy as most of the parties who can influence the resolution are often not fair and reasonable.

In seeking that resolution we have deployed a number of strategies including technical discussions with HMRC; media' political campaigns; lobbying via consultations; meetings and discussions with promoters and their adviser; researching alternative routes. We have done our best to keep the group informed and aware of what is going on.

We are independent and have no ties to any promoter (and have turned away some looking for us to validate their offering).

We are paid by the group. We have staff, premises, overheads. Dare I say it but the fees paid are very low in comparison to many others in this area.

I understand that some are suspicious of our motives and fear that we will suddenly come up with a huge fee hike, once everybody is so deep in trouble that they have no choice but to pay. We won't.

Words are cheap but we are not greedy. Since we started, the annual income that I and my business partner have taken from the project would put us in the lower half of the range of incomes enjoyed by our clients. We do this work partly because we have seen the damage that tax avoidance creates in people's lives and in the past have spent a lot of time picking up pieces. Sounds very altruistic I'm sure but it's true and it's up to you whether you believe it.

Many here seem to suggest that if we had any integrity, we should;

a) share openly every idea and plan we have and

b) work for nothing

A few seconds thought will show that route is impossible.

Our plan is not rocket science. It's common sense. Almost anybody with a smidgen of training could devise it. There is no secret. There is no guarantee. Yes, we could be closed tomorrow by retrospective law - so could the sale of ice cream.

We could work for nothing. I would of course have to return the fleet of super cars on the drive and see if I can get back the deposit on the yacht, but I could. Why should I?

Nobody is forced to join BG.

Plenty of advisers out there. Phil has recently joined the forum and seems to be gaining a following. He has, rightly, made no secret of his commercial motives. Iliketax is clearly knowledgeable despite claiming often that contractors are not his clients. He claims no commercial interest but rather wants to share public knowledge. Good for him. Others have been identified in the threads from time to time and have in general come in for criticism for their connections with promoters, high fees or both. I've spoken with some and whilst we have different views, I would not say that another adviser is completely wrong.

So, rather like many did when selecting a scheme to use, there is a choice out there. We are always happy to lay out our view in a call and if you like it and want to join, great. If you don't and decide not to join, fine.

The objective of the group however remains fair and reasonable settlement.

We do not believe that CLSO 2 is that.

We believe that the principles in Rangers are closer to the truth and despite HMRC trying to write that decision out of history, we believe that their objective is not as easy as they would have you believe.

Perhaps we're wrong. We'll know in about 3 years.

In summary, whilst this is a public forum and you can post what you like, we continue to believe in our project.

If you do not, then consider carefully the alternatives because they are narrowing all the time.

[starstruck]

Perhaps we're wrong. We'll know in about 3 years.

So I assume you have a plan to put on hold the LC for your members during this three years of the plan progressing, either that or they pay it and get a refund if the plan later works. If it doesn't work (35% chance) then I guess no refund of LC (if paid earlier) or pay LC plus interest (if not paid earlier). For those of us with a very big difference between LC and settlement, it would seem BG is a bigger risk than for those with a small difference between the two, because of the loss of the settlement opportunity. Basically if it doesn't work then it's the LC (+interest). Does that sound fair?

[Fred Bloggs]

Well said webberg. I am not a BG client, nor ever likely to be, but I have been watching from the very start and I do believe you bring a desperately needed honesty and integrity to this sorry mess. Carry on the good work, I am sure your BG members are the best advocates for what you are doing. From the other advisers I have seen here or elsewhere, I do sometimes wonder whether they really have their clients well being as well to the forefront of what they do as BG seem to be doing.

[stonehenge]

I'm a sceptic but not of BG per se. I'm just sceptical that there's any financially palatable way out of this mess.

To be fair on BG, things have changed radically since the group was formed, and not for the better.

First we had APNs and now they've gone for the nuclear option with LC19.

[ConfusedEasily]

So I assume you have a plan to put on hold the LC for your members during this three years of the plan progressing, either that or they pay it and get a refund if the plan later works. If it doesn't work (35% chance) then I guess no refund of LC (if paid earlier) or pay LC plus interest (if not paid earlier). For those of us with a very big difference between LC and settlement, it would seem BG is a bigger risk than for those with a small difference between the two, because of the loss of the settlement opportunity. Basically if it doesn't work then it's the LC (+interest). Does that sound fair?

You joined a tax avoidance scheme will have to, at some point, pay some cash.

You can settle, pay the LC or take the BG settlement approach. All have a degree of risk. Given that you expect BG to provide you with compensation if their approach fails (which they will not do) then perhaps you should just take CLSO2 and be done with it?

[regron]

Another scenario for you:

Under CLSO1, CLSO2 and/or the loan charge you face bankruptcy. Do you just rollover, or join BG and fight for a resolution ?

[webberg]

So I assume you have a plan to put on hold the LC for your members during this three years of the plan progressing, either that or they pay it and get a refund if the plan later works. If it doesn't work (35% chance) then I guess no refund of LC (if paid earlier) or pay LC plus interest (if not paid earlier). For those of us with a very big difference between LC and settlement, it would seem BG is a bigger risk than for those with a small difference between the two, because of the loss of the settlement opportunity. Basically if it doesn't work then it's the LC (+interest). Does that sound fair?

DR charge is a risk.

HMRC has very deliberately pitched it as they have to force settlement.

So yes, if you are with us, whilst we consider that we can postpone the charge in the first instance, perhaps ultimately annul it, if we are wrong then it becomes due.

As to how big a difference a settlement with tax and interest against the DR charge is, will depend on your circumstances.