Vanquish Options - Opinions? (AML/Knox related)

[webberg]

Understood.

But do we know for sure that a GAAR ruling is on its way or given the circumstances, one is highly likely?

[Iliketax]

Understood.

But do we know for sure that a GAAR ruling is on its way or given the circumstances, one is highly likely?

There have been two GAAR opinions on DR schemes (one I linked to, the other about gold bullion). I don't know enough about the GAAR advisory panel procedures but I don't think it is possible for HMRC to take something to the panel on a pre-emptive basis. So they will have to wait for someone to actually do something and then report it (or not). Obviously, they can take someone to the ASA for advertising one.

I would have thought it a slam dunk that HMRC would use the GAAR panel ahead of the FTT. It is way quicker and has a greater impact on other "users" (allows an APN, brings STAR, POTAS, enablers into play) and it's probably more fun for the HMRC people involved.

[phil@pmtc]

Hi all,

Today's AML/Knox emails have put the wind up me and probably many others today. Within the emails there was an option proposed under Vanquish Options.

I called them earlier to understand their proposal (details are light) and it just seems somewhat too good to be true.

On the phone they described the mechanism as effectively Vanquish paying off the loan amount and taking ownership of the loan under a different vehicle which was seemingly not within the scope of the legislation (yet?!).

Effectively I was told a 5% payment of the total loan amount is what would jump the immediate hurdle of LC19.

I note that the website was registered via WHOIS on 2X/03/18 and that their IoM based, just like Pts-tax.

Has anybody more information on this and can anybody shed any light on the possibility of something like this working? To me is seems slim indeed.

My opinion is that it will fail. Id say there's less than a 0.000001% chance of success. Primarily as its a complete nonsense. HMRC have clearly stated that any attempt such as this will not work (they have updated legislation on the replacement loan part).

For a more useful answer i'd refer everyone to the reasons provided by iliketax.

[Genesis]

My opinion is that it will fail. Id say there's less than a 0.000001% chance of success. Primarily as its a complete nonsense. HMRC have clearly stated that any attempt such as this will not work (they have updated legislation on the replacement loan part).

For a more useful answer i'd refer everyone to the reasons provided by iliketax.

Which begs the question - why would Vanquish be peddling this option if they hadn't looked into the legislation closely? I have my doubts about their intentions, but I would be surprised if they are just a couple of plucky guys looking to scam 5% off of helpless victims. Otherwise KHT wouldn't be recommending them.... surely??

The loan will not be turned into a different loan, is what they explained to me. It would be paid up in full.

[catanonia]

Don't even consider anything else with AML or any other company they suggest. It will only get worse.

[Babayaga]

My advice is that you should go and get professional advice from an unbiased source.

There are a few of us here and I'm sure Google is your friend as well.

If your issue is not so much affording the total, but needing to spread the pain over a number of years, then my advice would be to get some calculation from HMRC under their present offer and discuss how long they might give you to pay.

That is likely, in the medium term, to be less problematic than a "scheme to fix a scheme", which HMRC will, in my opinion, challenge none too gently.

Clearly I have not seen the details of the Vanquish proposal and suspect that they would be reluctant to share them with me. I have therefore no opinion on its bona fides or the strength of its QC opinion. The clue is however in "opinion". Ultimately the test of that opinion is in Court and that might take several years and cost a lot of fees and will not, usually, prevent the tax being paid in the meantime.

You will find professional opinion in these threads varies. Iliketax above has raised a very valid point that replacement loans are just as capable of being taxed as original loans. I know Phil@dtrs has a more pragmatic and less literal legalistic view. I have a view that is founded in our core strategy. I'm sure that some of the other tax advisers mentioned in this forum would be willing to share their views.

The one thing you must do however is pause and think this over once you have information.

Hi Webberg,

Am I able to arrange a quick call with you? (Just registered so unable to PM you).


Thanks

[Iliketax]

Which begs the question - why would Vanquish be peddling this option

I'm not sure...

OK, call me naïve

5% versus 45% - I know which one I'd be signing up for.

I would be surprised if they are just a couple of plucky guys looking to scam 5% off of helpless victims

For this type of thing, my favourite quote is this one:

If you sit in on a poker game and don’t see a sucker, get up. You’re the sucker.

[MLeggsy]

I'm off to Panama!

Which begs the question - why would Vanquish be peddling this option if they hadn't looked into the legislation closely? I have my doubts about their intentions, but I would be surprised if they are just a couple of plucky guys looking to scam 5% off of helpless victims. Otherwise KHT wouldn't be recommending them.... surely??

The loan will not be turned into a different loan, is what they explained to me. It would be paid up in full.

Hi Genesis,

Take a look at look at this link...

Michelle Mone's partner moves his tax avoidance business to Panama | HeraldScotland

MLeggsy

[ConfusedEasily]

What I find particularly galling is that the Vanquish option is obviously a misrepresentation of the LC19 legislation and it is designed to obtain money from users by, one could argue, deception.

How can it not be illegal?

[catanonia]

What I find particularly galling is that the Vanquish option is obviously a misrepresentation of the LC19 legislation and it is designed to obtain money from users by, one could argue, deception.

How can it not be illegal?

Because it is too difficult for the government to chase these people in other countries. So they take on the individuals such as us who are easy prey.
Wrong, yes totally, but the way it is. Low hanging fruit = contractors with no means of fighting.