Horizon exit opportunity (Non-Big Group discussion thread)

[regron]

And don't forget this is now in play

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/serial-tax-avoidance

[Jarzinhio]

cojak ... Why would you remove details of their proposals? Horizon members need to hear and understand what is being proposed.
If its because if HMRC gets the wind of it and it would jeopardize then the scheme is of zero value and should not be get in to.




Jarzinho.... So you are referring to the "Pay us 5% Admin Fee plus 2.5% Bridging loan interest charge and we wont tell HMRC how much you owe us scheme?

This is basically the very same individuals that ran Horizon schemes looking to gain 7.5% holding members to ransom with a gun to your head. You pay us the money and we wont tell HMRC come 2019 that you were in a scheme. If you dont pay then we will.

HMRC already knows most members in Horizon through Self Assessment submissions for each year by who your employer was. Come 2020 they can still come after you even though Go Outsourcing has not declared the information to them.

Hi Luxcon, no that scheme is on the back of the Rangers win and makes no sense to me. Its the original proposal.PM me to discuss

[Cityampm]

There are snake-oil salesman circling. I am sure cojak can be convinced. Remember the CUK is not a public information service.

And yet one snake oil salesman seems to have been allowed to tout his products / services freely on here...

[BrilloPad]

And yet one snake oil salesman seems to have been allowed to tout his products / services freely on here...

Not for a very long time. Though you may have a different definition of snake oil salesman

[eek]

Not for a very long time. Though you may have a different definition of snake oil salesman

I think he just has a dislike of big group for reasons I can't be bothered to think about..

[BrilloPad]

I think he just has a dislike of big group for reasons I can't be bothered to think about..

Ahhh - he did mean BG!

BG have always been very open and honest. They admit they are getting paid.

Who else will help you settle? Who else will help interpret the HMRC new rules(which are even less understandable than the new rules lyrics by Duo Lipa).

People may whine and b1tch - however they never seem to suggest anything better....

[Jarzinhio]

Ahhh - he did mean BG!

BG have always been very open and honest. They admit they are getting paid.

Who else will help you settle? Who else will help interpret the HMRC new rules(which are even less understandable than the new rules lyrics by Duo Lipa).

People may whine and b1tch - however they never seem to suggest anything better....

So what is the solution and options. Everyone keeps saying don't get bitten twice or thrice. So if don't go down that route then the only option is to get slammed by HMRC or keep negotitating with them until it's too late. As I said everyone has different amounts they are due to pay. Just trying to see what the options are. I know BG are discussing with HMRC on the Rangers case etc. but they have been discussing for years. True now there is legislation and a change with the Rangers case final verdict but my experience with HMRC from other cases is that it will be difficult. They will look at each scheme individually and the law seems to have no logic as to how it can be applied differently to two identical looking cases.

[regron]

So what is the solution and options. Everyone keeps saying don't get bitten twice or thrice. So if don't go down that route then the only option is to get slammed by HMRC or keep negotitating with them until it's too late. As I said everyone has different amounts they are due to pay. Just trying to see what the options are. I know BG are discussing with HMRC on the Rangers case etc. but they have been discussing for years. True now there is legislation and a change with the Rangers case final verdict but my experience with HMRC from other cases is that it will be difficult. They will look at each scheme individually and the law seems to have no logic as to how it can be applied differently to two identical looking cases.

Putting it bluntly:

1. Fight it alone.
2. Do some resource, make some calls, make an informed decision and join a group who you can fight it with.
3. Do nothing and pay it all over when HMRC demand it.

[BrilloPad]

So what is the solution and options. Everyone keeps saying don't get bitten twice or thrice. So if don't go down that route then the only option is to get slammed by HMRC or keep negotitating with them until it's too late. As I said everyone has different amounts they are due to pay. Just trying to see what the options are. I know BG are discussing with HMRC on the Rangers case etc. but they have been discussing for years. True now there is legislation and a change with the Rangers case final verdict but my experience with HMRC from other cases is that it will be difficult. They will look at each scheme individually and the law seems to have no logic as to how it can be applied differently to two identical looking cases.

There is no solution. Since the retrospective law change in 2008 this has been coming.

If I had a loan(when DTA law was changed I bailed immediately) I would look to settle with HMRC.

My concern is that HMRC recently asked for inheritance tax on top of income tax! I would look to get advice settling - from BG. I would be concerned that any other group would be snake oil purveyors. And any individual adviser would cost too much.

I am concerned that BG is run by professionals. NTRT is run by amateurs - if they mess up they suffer as much as the rest. The leaders are the cleverest and brightest.

I have other worries: -
1. DTA
2. HMRC never respond when schemes are reported. They need to be far more pro-active in closing them down. Hence schemes keep multiplying.
3. HMRC seem determined to use their perceived success on DTA and public sector contracts to target ALL contractors. However, that is a discussion for https://forums.contractoruk.com/future-contracting/

[stonehenge]

Where are the "no win, no fee" ambulance chasers?

I'm sure many people would gladly sign up to paying a %, of any reduction in their tax bill, in return for "no win, no fee".

At least you'd have more confidence that the advisors themselves really believed they could achieve something.

Of course, such terms will never be offered for obvious reasons.