Vanquish Options - Opinions? (AML/Knox related)

[sreid]

AML / Knox - Don't know what to do (head is a mess)

Hi all,
Yesterday I also recived the email from AML/Knox and I don't have a clue what to do or where to start, been up all night worried sick. I have a a call with Vanquish this morning and after reading the comments below i will not be taking up there offer. I really don't know where to start or what to do as this could finish me for good !! I have been a total fool thinking it was legal and above board.

ANY HELP OR DIRECTION PLEASE would be more than greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[jazzyg]

Hi all,
Yesterday I also recived the email from AML/Knox and I don't have a clue what to do or where to start, been up all night worried sick. I have a a call with Vanquish this morning and after reading the comments below i will not be taking up there offer. I really don't know where to start or what to do as this could finish me for good !! I have been a total fool thinking it was legal and above board.

ANY HELP OR DIRECTION PLEASE would be more than greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Search for DSW or WTT and speak to them

[Loan Ranger]

And that the trustee has not earmarked it for you.

The trustee should act in the best interest of the beneficiary and, clearly, earmarking wouldn't be in the best interest if it triggered a tax charge.

What could they do with the money? Earmark it for a relative, or another beneficiary? Give it to charity?

[Iliketax]

The trustee should act in the best interest of the beneficiary and, clearly, earmarking wouldn't be in the best interest if it triggered a tax charge.

What could they do with the money? Earmark it for a relative, or another beneficiary? Give it to charity?

Good question. Giving it to a charity would be fine provided the charity is not a "relevant person".

(2) In subsection (1) “relevant person” —

(a) means A or a person chosen by A or within a class of person chosen by A, and

(b) includes, if P is taking a step on A's behalf or otherwise at A's direction or request, any other person.

(3) In subsection (2) references to A include references to any person linked with A

So if you ("A") asked the trustee ("P") to give the cash to a charity that would give you a tax charge since the charity would be a relevant person.

Earmarking it for another beneficiary would mean that the other beneficiary would get a tax charge if it was connected to their employment.

If you asked them to earmark it for a relative (who will be "a person linked with A") then that gives you a tax charge (same reason as for a charity). If the trustee did it off its own bat and you were "connected" to the relative then that would give you a tax charge. The definition of connected used here is very wide and would catch what most people thing of as their relatives.

You could ask the trustee to give the cash to me and I'd happily pay the tax.

Oh, if the cash came from your personal service company, the earmarking charge is even wider.

And just for completeness, the trust deed may mean that the cash is automatically earmarked for you (common with "pension" schemes used to provide loans).

[SlothGator]

Good question. Giving it to a charity would be fine provided the charity is not a "relevant person".



So if you ("A") asked the trustee ("P") to give the cash to a charity that would give you a tax charge since the charity would be a relevant person.

Earmarking it for another beneficiary would mean that the other beneficiary would get a tax charge if it was connected to their employment.

If you asked them to earmark it for a relative (who will be "a person linked with A") then that gives you a tax charge (same reason as for a charity). If the trustee did it off its own bat and you were "connected" to the relative then that would give you a tax charge. The definition of connected used here is very wide and would catch what most people thing of as their relatives.

You could ask the trustee to give the cash to me and I'd happily pay the tax.

Oh, if the cash came from your personal service company, the earmarking charge is even wider.

And just for completeness, the trust deed may mean that the cash is automatically earmarked for you (common with "pension" schemes used to provide loans).

What if the trust had complete discretion over what they did with the funds and was not "earmarked" for anyone particular, just the class of beneficiary that the trust was established to benefit?

[Loan Ranger]

Earmarking it for another beneficiary would mean that the other beneficiary would get a tax charge if it was connected to their employment.

How could it be connected to their employment?

[pateen]

Vanquish dont seem to be answering the phone any longer. Just wondering did anyone else find the same thing?

[kentishlad]

Vanquish dont seem to be answering the phone any longer. Just wondering did anyone else find the same thing?

They wont answer the phone.. they ring you back... another colleague has just mentioned hes been caught by this and will be using their services (another loan to pay the loan total madness)

[webberg]

What if the trust had complete discretion over what they did with the funds and was not "earmarked" for anyone particular, just the class of beneficiary that the trust was established to benefit?

You need to step back and think about that position.

Is it really the case that all the funds paid to a trust are thrown into a pot and the trustees then apply a discretion on how to distribute?

If so, is it just coincidence that each time this happens, you receive your gross invoiced value, less salary and fees?

The "not earmarked for an individual" feature is something commonly seen in what is sometimes called a "remuneration trust". I'm not sure that there is any magic in the name nor in fact in its operation. Rather in many we have seen, they operate just the same as an EBT or a contractor loan scheme.

In my opinion, if tested in Court, I think a Judge would place more weight upon the facts than the documents.

[webberg]

How could it be connected to their employment?

A bit like how "connection" is measured between individuals and tax personalities (companies, LLPs) they are part of, in a very wide manner, the rules in Part 7A have wide application.

The rules there are also (arguably) tax avoidance law and that is to be read widely.

Therefore as the rules generally apply to "any arrangements" it's entirely possible that a payment directed to a third party which is a charity would be seen as arising from an employment. After all, where did the funds come from which led to the donation?