• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Sympathy for the Devil

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by starstruck View Post
    You seem to be thinking that BG is about a large number of people approaching HMRC together and trying to negotiate a group deal that is better than you could get as an individual. Which I think a lot of people have assumed also. But as people have stated above (including webberg who runs BG) HMRC won't do that. You won't fully understand what BG is about until you pay to join, as they won't explain it to you until you do (because BG members have paid for the advice behind the plan and why should that be given out for free and publicly). It's sort of a secret that you have to pay to find out, you may or may not like what you find out and as webberg says you are then free to walk away. I hope the above is clear and fair to all involved.
    It's not a secret what we do.

    We started with the idea that in almost all circumstances, "loans" were in fact remuneration and as such if the employer had not deducted tax then HMRC could and should have issued assessments on them.

    How that theory fits into and disrupts (or not) the blizzard of legislation we have seen since 2011 is a lot of work and analysis.

    There are a number of cases coming to FTT this year which will be arguing the above or variants. Even though many promoters (if they are still around) claim that their original analysis (usually based on Sempra and/or Dextra - now determined by the Supreme Court to have been incorrectly decided) is good, there is evidence that they are all gravitating towards the above.

    So, Big Group is not a secret. We will tell you what we're planning before we ask for a fee. We will not go into detail because as mentioned, that has been paid for by existing members, but the big picture is definitely not a secret and not something we keep in order to sell.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

    Comment


      Originally posted by Invisiblehand View Post
      I thought the same. With more people comes a better chance at negotiating better settlement figure?

      No doubt I've missed something!
      Again.

      CLSO 2 is HMRC's present "offer".

      Most challenges to its terms, calculations etc result in a "take it or leave it" message and a refusal to confirm even the most basic of required assurances.

      We believe that parts of the analysis behind it are flawed, especially the IHT part. We think that the threat to tax fees unless you settle is nonsense.

      We have had some issues addressed. Not as many as we would like, but some.

      HMRC claim that the offer is outside the statute and as such they can apply pretty much whatever terms and conditions they like. That may be true. I'm not a constitutional law expert and for all I know this is true.

      So, no matter how many numbers a group has the CLSO 2 terms will remain the same. No adviser is going to get better terms than another.

      I understand that some are claiming a "new" settlement contract is appearing that includes fixes to issues raised. I hope that is true but if it is, I've not seen any such contract.
      Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

      (No, me neither).

      Comment


        Originally posted by webberg View Post
        So, Big Group is not a secret. We will tell you what we're planning before we ask for a fee. We will not go into detail
        I'll leave it at that.

        Comment


          Originally posted by starstruck View Post
          I'll leave it at that.
          Good for you. And may I recommend this thread for your future posting? https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...re-please.html
          "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
          - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

          Comment


            Originally posted by webberg View Post
            Again.

            So, no matter how many numbers a group has the CLSO 2 terms will remain the same.
            .
            So in essence you're not taking the CLSO2 settlement and seeking to argue against certain aspects of its conclusions and with weight of numbers comes a better chance of being listened to?

            Comment


              Originally posted by BrownOwl View Post
              Hi Phil,

              Thanks for the information.

              Was there anything in the discussions about a full refund of the settlement if a scheme wins in court or the 2019 legislation is defeated in some way?
              Hi, There was not tbh, but my thoughts are that if you sign the settlement then any future decision is irrelevant.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Loan Ranger View Post
                I heard of one person, who took corrective action 9 months ago, recently getting the NICs back.

                It's definitely worth writing and demanding it back.
                I agree with the above sentence. Well worth writing in but still, prob worth calling me for the chat so I can explain also.
                PS - I didn't receive a PM(?)

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Invisiblehand View Post
                  So in essence you're not taking the CLSO2 settlement and seeking to argue against certain aspects of its conclusions and with weight of numbers comes a better chance of being listened to?
                  We're not "seeking to argue against certain aspects of its conclusions".

                  Again.

                  The CLSO is outside statute and does not comply with either the law or the Supreme Court decision. It is a concession offered by HMRC. There is consequently nothing to argue against. I could knock myself out trying to persuade HMRC to try to make the CLSO terms even vaguely compliant but it would be a waste if time. They have set out their stall and they're asking you to pay them based on an analysis that cannot be supported in law or Court. They are stubbornly clinging to their position because they know that the alternative (litigate or some other resolution) is hard yards. They know that some people have been fighting this for a decade and are tired and depressed. They know that they have caused a lot of this but they just don't care except to the extent that they want their political masters not to realise it. If this remains deniable at MP level, HMRC is protected.

                  So we do not "argue against" the CLSO terms because it's a pointless argument.

                  We have a different plan based on law and Court decisions.
                  Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

                  (No, me neither).

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by phil@dswtres View Post
                    Hi, There was not tbh, but my thoughts are that if you sign the settlement then any future decision is irrelevant.
                    Hi Phil,

                    Thanks for the response.

                    I wonder how confident HMRC are in the 2019 legilsation if they won't allow refunds if it is challenged somehow? It wouldn't be much risk to add a clause if it's the supposed dead cert for them. Very odd, maybe they aren't as certain as they want us to think.

                    The settlement terms presumably state which legislation HMRC would use to tax me if I didn't settle, so can that legislation be challenged in future?

                    The last letters I had from HMRC mentioned transfer of assets aboard so presumably HMRC settlement terms outline their arguments on how it applies?

                    Do the settlement terms say I'll never be liable for future tax under any circumstance?

                    Saying I'm not liable for the 2019 legislation specifically isn't covering everything as they could introduce another retrospective tax in 2020 to grab some more. I've effectively admitted to them I'm a tax avoider and there open to any future retrospective taxes they can think of.

                    The original 2015 settlement opportunity has fallen foul of this where some people settled and could now be liable for the 2019 legislation in some years.

                    What's in the settlement terms to stop them doing this again?

                    Comment


                      Question for ex-HMRC folks

                      Phil et al ...

                      Can you confirm if an FN, APN and subsequent LoR rejection letter from HMRC Solicitors Office are classified as legal documents.

                      If so then can you confirm if errors on any of those documents could render them invalid

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X