Schemes like Vanquish which claim to bypass the Loan Charge

[cojak]

Funnily enough, I'm about to ban them.

1. Why do they hide your company information from Nominet?
2. Why does their website redirect to spam?
4. What IOM business are they related to?

Please do the necessary WTFH...

[WTFH]

If I discover he is his tenure here will be very short indeed...

Too slow.

I have done the necessary and am reverting.

[WTFH]

A little note for everyone:
Please be aware that some dodgy businesses may approach you (and may post on here) offering wonderful solutions. Be wary.

As moderators we do our best to filter out those who will promise you the world, take money from you and leave you in a worse place. If you spot a new poster/business making such offerings, please report them using the button at the bottom of the post or ask about them on the forum.

[Genesis]

Playing Devil's Advocate here as I'm as sceptical about some of these recommended 3rd parties (by AML/KHT for instance) so am taking what they say with a pinch of salt regarding the loan repayment thingy.

But, it does strike me as slightly condescending that those that may have signed up to these tax maximisation (efficient) schemes years back, are now telling us that to listen to any other proposal, is totally naïve and insane. After all, the Govt's approach to changing the law is one thing - closing down an apparent loop hole. But to retrospectively backdate that is legally questionable and I'm sure is challengeable through the courts.
Just imagine HMG introduced a law that retrospectively penalised the public for smoking in public places... anyone known to have smoked in a pub prior to 2010 is going to be charged £1000 a year backdated to 1972!!! Of course, the country would rightly be up in arms. And the same should be said about this. That HMRC already tried to prove (and fail) that the PBT route was illegal, and have now had a law passed through Govt to get over that, is somewhat unbelievable.

So, I don't think any possibile loop hole in the legal system should be frowned upon just quite yet, unless of course you simply want to pay what HMRC are looking for and move on with your life.

If the likes of Vanquish have found a cunning way of getting round this, is it not fair and reasonable to listen to what they have to say? And before the Tax experts jump on this and say no it's not, please presume for a minute that you don't necessarily have all the facts to hand... I'm assuming no one will other than the proposer in order to keep from getting out there and becoming public knowledge.

[cojak]

Yes, the ultimate decision is yours.

However, we will not let those through who meet the criteria that WTFH sets out.

This is after many, many, many years of participating in and moderating these threads.

[Loan Ranger]

If the likes of Vanquish have found a cunning way of getting round this, is it not fair and reasonable to listen to what they have to say?

Here's the problem.

No matter how plausible it sounds, you wouldn't want to just take their word for it that it will work.

They say it's supported by Tax Counsel opinion. They probably won't let you have a copy of the opinion but they might let you read it if you visited their office. Knowing the name of the Counsel would be useful because you could check out their credentials eg. how eminent they are.

Ask Vanquish what happens when HMRC inevitably challenge it (and they absolutely will). Would Vanquish defend it in court? Then you have to wonder if they'll still be around when the time comes. These companies have a habit of disappearing when the SHTF.

To improve your confidence level, you could obtain your own legal opinions on it but that will be very costly.

No matter how much due diligence you do, it will still be a gamble with very uncertain odds. If it goes wrong it could be very painful (hefty penalties).

[Loan Ranger]

If someone was hell bent on avoiding the charge, and they asked me what would I do?

a) use a scheme to avoid it

b) emigrate to a country with no tax treaties with the UK

I would say (b) every time. That's how little confidence I have that any of these schemes will work.

[ChimpMaster]

If someone was hell bent on avoiding the charge, and they asked me what would I do?

a) use a scheme to avoid it

b) emigrate to a country with no tax treaties with the UK

I would say (b) every time. That's how little confidence I have that any of these schemes will work.

c) Spend every penny you have on booze, parties, women and fast cars, and then waste the rest. Have an awesome 2 years before declaring bankruptcy.

d) Gamble every penny you have. Choose red or black. Double or nothing. Double it and you pay your tax. Lose it and you declare bankruptcy.

Of course, these options are only really in the frame if you're borderline on the bankruptcy anyway, once the LC kicks in.

[QCApproved]

Closing Loopholes/Retro Action

I'd urge anyone contemplating using such a scheme to read the judgements in the Huitson cases particularly in the Law Reports 2011 onwards. It would have served me well. Those and the litany of events since have sent the stock of Counsel's Opinions into Junk Bond status.

[Fred Bloggs]

I'd urge anyone contemplating using such a scheme to read the judgements in the Huitson cases particularly in the Law Reports 2011 onwards. It would have served me well. Those and the litany of events since have sent the stock of Counsel's Opinions into Junk Bond status.

I may be wide of the mark, but IIRC, one of the main sources of such QC opinion was a disgraced bankrupt eventually? Bankrupt in more than one sense of the word too.