New Finance Bill 2017-18

[ConfusedEasily]

The scheme member can do that him/herself and ask the Trustee to release the loan with the same degree of success.

Ia that what you did? How did that work out for you then?

[ConfusedEasily]

The couple of advisors I spoke to said there's little hope of getting better than CLSO2 now HMRC have got the loan charge.

As an aside, did you pay the advisers or was it a chat in the bar?

Did you really pay two advisors to consider your situation and did they both advised you to settle under CLSO2? Did they point out the multiple issues with CLSO2? How did they view your exposure to CLSO2 vs just paying the charge itself?

[stonehenge]

As an aside, did you pay the advisers or was it a chat in the bar?

Did you really pay two advisors to consider your situation and did they both advised you to settle under CLSO2? Did they point out the multiple issues with CLSO2? How did they view your exposure to CLSO2 vs just paying the charge itself?

No I didn't pay, it was just an exchange of emails.

One of them, Matt Hall of Saleos Consulting, was already representing a group of contractors, and was planning to appeal a test case to the tax chamber. I think this was abandoned after the loan charge was announced.

I didn't ask them to compare CLSO2 and the charge because that's something I could do myself. I just wanted to know if there was any prospect of getting a better deal, and neither thought there was.

[jbryce]

No I didn't pay, it was just an exchange of emails.

One of them, Matt Hall of Saleos Consulting, was already representing a group of contractors, and was planning to appeal a test case to the tax chamber. I think this was abandoned after the loan charge was announced.

I didn't ask them to compare CLSO2 and the charge because that's something I could do myself. I just wanted to know if there was any prospect of getting a better deal, and neither thought there was.

You do know that Matt promoted the schemes?
You do know that Matt is emigrating to Australia? That's why he's backing off - he's leaving. And guess where the backers of the schemes live now? Australia.

Matt Hall? FFS - he's not a qualified anything. He <recommended> the schemes and then offered to fix it, for a fee. He <clarified> still offers GAAR 'proof' arrangements.

<Mod snip>

Look, CLSO2 is take it or leave it. Matt may be right. <Mod snip> but I doubt if any of them, including BG or iLikeTax, know what is going to happen.

[Saleos]

JBryce

Below is a defamatory load of BS.

I’m a qualified CTA and have been for over 15 years.

I didn’t sell a single contractor a scheme. I don’t offer any scheme, of any variety, now and haven’t done so for several years and there is no such thing as a GAAR proof scheme.

Not sure Mickey knows what’s going on but I f you don’t delete the post I know exactly what will happen. I’ll sue you for defamation. Before 5.4.19.

You do know that Matt promoted the schemes?
You do know that Matt is emigrating to Australia? That's why he's backing off - he's leaving. And guess where the backers of the schemes live now? Australia.

Matt Hall? FFS - he's not a qualified anything. He <recommended> the schemes and then offered to fix it, for a fee. He <clarified> still offers GAAR 'proof' arrangements.

<Mod snip>

Look, CLSO2 is take it or leave it. Matt may be right. <Mod snip> but I doubt if any of them, including BG or iLikeTax, know what is going to happen.

[BrilloPad]

I didn’t sell a single contractor a scheme. I don’t offer any scheme, of any variety, now and haven’t done so for several years.

So you did offer a scheme?

[jbryce]

You do know that Matt promoted the schemes?
You do know that Matt is emigrating to Australia? That's why he's backing off - he's leaving. And guess where the backers of the schemes live now? Australia.

Matt Hall? FFS - he's not a qualified anything. He sold people the schemes and then offered to fix it, for a fee. He is a salesman, a conman who still offers GAAR 'proof' arrangements.

If out of the two 'advisers', the best you can offer is Matt Hall, then I assume the other one is Micky Mouse

Look, CLSO2 is take it or leave it. Matt may be right. Mickey Mouse may be right - but I doubt if any of them, including BG or iLikeTax, know what is going to happen.

You do know that Matt is emigrating to Australia? That's why he's backing off - he's leaving. And guess where the backers of the schemes live now? Australia.

Matt, you are moving to Australia.
The backers of the scheme you promoted now live in Australia.

Matt Hall? FFS - he's not a qualified anything.

Matt - apologies. You are a qualified CTA. Six exams in two years. You also need three years in the field - I assume you'll include the years you spent promoting these schemes during that trial period?
As an aside, how many exams does an Accountant sit?


He promoted the schemes and then offered to support users of them, for a fee

You promoted schemes. You stood on a stage and presented the schemes to users who now face the 2019 charge. You charge your clients for advice in remitting the schemes that you promoted. Both fact. Did you benefit from the sal of the schemes?

He is a salesman, .... who still offers GAAR 'proof' arrangements.

From your site: "It is not aggressive, not disclosable under the DoTAS regime, and unaffected by the General Anti-Abuse Rule."

You also asserted that the schemes you promoted were effective tax avoidance schemes.

So, please feel free to sue me. I'm sure the case will make interesting reading both in the UK and Australia.

[Saleos]

If you’re so confident of your facts share your name and address and we can find out. Or are you a coward as well as a troll?

The tax you’ll pay is because of a tax charge created several years after I was involved. The schemes I was involved in wouldn’t have led to you paying a penny of tax were it not for the 5.4.19 charge. And if you think anyone could have foreseen that then there’s clearly no rationalising with you.

And turning to your points.

The backer of 1 scheme (over 10 years ago) lives in Australia. Out of 6 schemes I deal with. How is that remotely relevant? And I’m not emigrating. (Stalker!).

CTA = 6 exams in 2 years - 6 more than you. And most accountants (the majority of whom fail the CTA exams). And before that 6 more papers and 2 years doing ATT exams to be allowed to sit CTA. And I’d worked in tax for 10years before qualifying. How many professional qualifications in this field do you hold?

I didn’t charge users a fee for support. And I didn’t have to agree to help the thousands of contractors I do now, mostly in schemes I had absolutely nothing to do it with. And I charge much less for that than I could or should have and wish I’d never bothered (like most others).

I don’t offer the schemes on the website set up over 4 years ago and not touched since. Nor does it even say GAAR proof.

So supply your name and address and we will can give everyone a good read. Unless you’re just full of tulip.

You do know that Matt is emigrating to Australia? That's why he's backing off - he's leaving. And guess where the backers of the schemes live now? Australia.

Matt, you are moving to Australia.
The backers of the scheme you promoted now live in Australia.

Matt Hall? FFS - he's not a qualified anything.

Matt - apologies. You are a qualified CTA. Six exams in two years. You also need three years in the field - I assume you'll include the years you spent promoting these schemes during that trial period?
As an aside, how many exams does an Accountant sit?


He promoted the schemes and then offered to support users of them, for a fee

You promoted schemes. You stood on a stage and presented the schemes to users who now face the 2019 charge. You charge your clients for advice in remitting the schemes that you promoted. Both fact. Did you benefit from the sal of the schemes?

He is a salesman, .... who still offers GAAR 'proof' arrangements.

From your site: "It is not aggressive, not disclosable under the DoTAS regime, and unaffected by the General Anti-Abuse Rule."

You also asserted that the schemes you promoted were effective tax avoidance schemes.

So, please feel free to sue me. I'm sure the case will make interesting reading both in the UK and Australia.

[jbryce]

The tax you’ll pay is because of a tax charge created several years after I was involved. The schemes I was involved in wouldn’t have led to you paying a penny of tax were it not for the 5.4.19 charge. And if you think anyone could have foreseen that then there’s clearly no rationalising with you.

were it not for the 5.4.19 charge.
Oh duh - so these tax avoidance schemes were bomb proof? In which case I withdraw the allegation that you were ever involved in any schemes that have failed.

If it wasn't for the pesky kids, Osbourne and Cameron, we'd've got away with it!

CTA = 6 exams in 2 years - 6 more than you. And most accountants (the majority of whom fail the CTA exams). And before that 6 more papers and 2 years doing ATT exams to be allowed to sit CTA. And I’d worked in tax for 10years before qualifying. How many professional qualifications in this field do you hold?

No need to get touchy. My point is that nothing you offer is in any way shape or form regulated.
Which is ok.
I have no qualifications in Tax which is why I, and others, relied on you to be our guide.

I didn’t charge users a fee for support. And I didn’t have to agree to help the thousands of contractors I do now, mostly in schemes I had absolutely nothing to do it with.

Hang on - I thought you had nothing to do with the schemes?
If you don't charge a penny to support users of schemes then I must, of course, apologise and withdraw any unintended suggestion that you do charge.

I don’t offer the schemes on the website set up over 4 years ago and not touched since. Nor does it even say GAAR proof.

Oh right - you don't offer those schemes anymore? Just once upon a time?. Your website is just four years out of date. Sorry - you can see how one could have assumed that your website was representative of your recent offerings.
f96cea2417621a533bbb0d3b8ff4f201
I did qualify the GAAR proof - and I'm sorry for misinterpreting your web site. What your site actually says is

It is not aggressive, not disclosable under the DoTAS regime, and unaffected by the General Anti-Abuse Rule.


Was it QC approved as well?

The backer of 1 scheme (over 10 years ago) lives in Australia. Out of 6 schemes I deal with. How is that remotely relevant? And I’m not emigrating. (Stalker!).

Are you not emigrating? Are you coming back?
My apologies for suggesting that you were emigrating, however, I, and many others, interpreted your twitter feed as you moving to Australia.
The UK needs its finest minds so I'm glad you're staying.

So supply your name and address and we will can give everyone a good read. Unless you’re just full of tulip.

But I think I've withdrawn all my allegations and just replied to your words? Which are:

...The schemes I was involved in wouldn’t have led to you paying a penny of tax were it not for the 5.4.19 charge.
...mostly in schemes I had absolutely nothing to do it with.
...I don’t offer the schemes on the website set up over 4 years ago and not touched since.

That ok?

[jbryce]

Hi Matt....

Based on the contents of your website and the contents of messages posted on this site by others and content on other social media outlets, I considered my comments to be based on a reasonable opinion. They were not meant to be defamatory.

As you chose to directly respond to the posts on CUK I corrected my comments to reflect your replies. I feel that this is a healthy discourse that has allowed me to address any, unintended, inaccuracies. I am glad that you chose to respond directly to allow us to correspond in an open forum.

The law,as it stands, reflects the Government’s view that disputes should be resolved
directly between the complainant and the poster where possible. As we are doing here.

As I choose to remain hidden, you are entitled to ask CUK to remove the post(s) which they should do within 48 hours.