Reporting advisers

[webberg]

No...quite the opposite in fact....but who do I take the case to? the ICAEW ?????

Find which body regulated your adviser. read their procedures and start there. Look to engage a lawyer if necessary

[Dmac]

Why aren't they closed down

Unbelievable! The one which "convinced" me to sign up in 2013 is still live and recruiting, with a live website!

Still quoting things like
"We can help you take home up to 90% of your pay after tax."
"Supported by leading tax counsel opinion"
"Full HMRC compliance"
"We regularly consult leading tax specialists to ensure our services are in line with current legislation."
"Our solutions are 100% HMRC compliant and are tried and trusted by 1000s of contractors"

HMRC have all the evidence they need NOW to proceed to close them down and prosecute - why are these not being shut down?

And there are no risk warnings? That must be unlawful, isn't it? No regulator quoted on their website though.

This makes me incredibly angry - that people are STILL being recruited onto these schemes! They need to be warned off - as I wish I was back in 2013!!!

[webberg]

HMRC does not have any powers to close down commercial businesses.

They can investigate and they can raid premises and businesses they believe are perpetrating fraud, but offering tax planning is perfectly legitimate and commercial.

So HMRC has no powers and no reasons to act. If they did so, they would be acting illegally.

You might want to try Trading Standards at your local Council or perhaps another Government department.

You might also want to raise this with your MP.

[Dmac]

HMRC does not have any powers to close down commercial businesses.

They can investigate and they can raid premises and businesses they believe are perpetrating fraud, but offering tax planning is perfectly legitimate and commercial.

So HMRC has no powers and no reasons to act. If they did so, they would be acting illegally.

You might want to try Trading Standards at your local Council or perhaps another Government department.

You might also want to raise this with your MP.

Perhaps the companies are being very careful in how they market themselves externally. Bet we all know on this forum that to offer 90% take-home rate MUST be tax-avoidance, which Mr Stride has deemed as "not legal".

I'm tempted to name and shame, although Mod would probably pull it, and it may be defamation

[webberg]

Perhaps the companies are being very careful in how they market themselves externally. Bet we all know on this forum that to offer 90% take-home rate MUST be tax-avoidance, which Mr Stride has deemed as "not legal".

I'm tempted to name and shame, although Mod would probably pull it, and it may be defamation

I could put up perhaps 2 dozen links to websites offering high take home rates. I think the majority are achieving that by reducing tax.

That is not illegal and Mel Stride (who is not to my knowledge a lawyer, nor quoting a legal source) is almost certainly mistaken in his statement that it is.

The rule is caveat emptor.

If you know it's tax avoidance then be prepared to defend it.

[GreenMirror]

This makes me incredibly angry - that people are STILL being recruited onto these schemes! They need to be warned off - as I wish I was back in 2013!!!

CUK have been running a high profile campaign since 2008.

If only more people read CUK.

And CUK is already preparing for the next battle - see the sub-forum "the future of contracting" started by cojak.

[RokkieContract]

Difficulty

I think you will have difficulty in pursuing any actual claim. Ultimately the PI provider will have far more resources at their disposal and given the size of the potential liability involved will fight ti death. The PI I suspect is relatively concentrated between a few parties if indeed the advisers had any.

https://www.step.org/news/tax-adviso...t-scheme-risks

[malvolio]

Another point worth making is that a 90% retention is entirely possible, if you only charge a small amount to your client such that your total earnings sit below the taxation level. It's not feasible in the real world to do that, but legally it blows a hole in the "misleading statement" argument.

As has been said, the advisors who didn't give fair warning of potential risks are the immediate target.