Sympathy for the Devil

[phil@pmtc]

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.

[Invisiblehand]

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?

[cojak]

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

[starstruck]

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.

[webberg]

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.

[webberg]

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.

[starstruck]

I thought the same. With more people comes a better chance at negotiating better settlement figure?

No doubt I've missed something!

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.

[Invisiblehand]

What's to explain?

Big Group is aimed at settlement and numbers matter.

The above discussion is about CLSO 2.

I thought the same. With more people comes a better chance at negotiating better settlement figure?

No doubt I've missed something!

[Loan Ranger]

Hi Phil - I PM'd you.

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.

[starstruck]

My update on all of the settlement position is that I now believe settlement to be final and I hold no concerns about HMRC attempting later charges. Clearly other advisors may think different and I'm not wishing to turn it into an argument at all (and I'm sure neither do they) but I'm highly confident the legislation covers it well.
I appreciate that basically stating "I believe hmrc" is as a general rule a bit crazy given the past few years but its based onmy interpretation of the legislation and the conversations ive held with them the past few days.

Thanks Phil. I assume this is connected to the recent talk of new offer letters. Will they now explicitly say the loan charge doesn’t apply?