Overdrawn Capital Account Scheme (Aston Mae / Glen Mae / Procorre)

[piebaps]

Hi All,

I too am caught by the current Loan Charge due to my historical use of Procorre/ Glen May.

Admins, please could you set me up with PM rights?

Kind regards

You may want to remove your name. HMRC monitor these pages.

[LSP]

PM rights

Hi All,

I too am caught by the current Loan Charge due to my historical use of Procorre/ Glen May.

Admins, please could you set me up with PM rights?

Kind regards
<mod snip>

[cojak]

The description in that post is not one I've encountered and is not - to the best of knowledge - the modus operandi adopted in the Procorre versions I've seen.

Consequently, I have no view or opinion on that earlier post.

Thanks webberg - I'm sure that it's fine, but we keep our eyes open for this kind of thing in future.

[webberg]

Ooh and funnily enough, we had a post about this a few days ago...

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ltd-taxes.html

I wonder if it's the same type of thing?

The description in that post is not one I've encountered and is not - to the best of knowledge - the modus operandi adopted in the Procorre versions I've seen.

Consequently, I have no view or opinion on that earlier post.

[cojak]

As this is not really a Procorre question, I'll immediately break my own embargo and answer.

In terms of complexity where the most intricate and contrived scheme is a 10, the early Procorre version would be a 5, the subsequent version perhaps a 7, the "sale of PSC" version pushing on towards a 9.

Complexity etc is not an indication of whether they work as advertised or not. The above is just an arbitrary measure of how easy they are to understand.

Ooh and funnily enough, we had a post about this a few days ago...

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ltd-taxes.html

I wonder if it's the same type of thing?

[webberg]

I'm reading between the lines in webberg's post.

As this is not really a Procorre question, I'll immediately break my own embargo and answer.

In terms of complexity where the most intricate and contrived scheme is a 10, the early Procorre version would be a 5, the subsequent version perhaps a 7, the "sale of PSC" version pushing on towards a 9.

Complexity etc is not an indication of whether they work as advertised or not. The above is just an arbitrary measure of how easy they are to understand.

[Fred Bloggs]

In the world of contractor schemes, is this the most convoluted one out there? I've read bits of the thread but I can't get my head around it.

I'm reading between the lines in webberg's post.

[DealorNoDeal]

In the world of contractor schemes, is this the most convoluted one out there? I've read bits of the thread but I can't get my head around it.

[webberg]

This will be my final post on Procorre and its predecessors.

Having read all the available materials and considered carefully their relationship with money flows and the suggested means of reporting such matters, we have decided that our view varies significantly from that of Procorre.

It is entirely possible that Procorre's view is correct: that our view is correct: that neither is correct: that both are correct but with nuances depending on the scheme type.

It will be no surprise that our view is that there is a tax liability on the payments received via any of the various schemes that they operate (three main ones we know of, perhaps more) but that the individual recipient of funds may not be primarily liable.

We (and I) are easily identifiable and as such we have to be mindful of the risks that brings.

I'm afraid therefore that I have reached a point where I have to retreat behind the shelter of an adviser/client relationship rather than go into more detail as to why we have reached our conclusions.

I appreciate that this may seem a cynical ploy to drive business our way. It's not. It's just that I think I have said enough about our view to allow people to weigh up their situation. I would remind you all that we offer a free initial call with no obligation to discuss individual circumstances.

Good luck.

[webberg]

In terms of proof, some hearsay sales patter is not the strongest.