S684 Letters from HMRC

[hudson]

Your memory is rather wrong there Felicitas really kicked off last year and Webberg and Big Group first appeared in 2015.

Personally charging a small amount of money for peace of mind doesn't seem a bad deal and remember that once WTT started doing so everyone else rapidly followed.

I know you dont like hearing this but I'm afraid you are wrong Eek. I didn't say Big Group, I said WTT wanted create a variation of Big Group.

I quote Webberg on the original "IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands" thread:

Well, assuming we put together a decent strategy to resist/manage the situation, it's likely to be not too far away from our Big Group model.

In other words a joining fee plus an ongoing maintenance fee.

The difference here is that resisting the loan demands is primarily a legal matter and we are tax specialists. Therefore our role is to limit the lawyers to the grounds we can identify as fruitful for clients and dealing with the tax consequences of whatever that strategy is.

To a degree we will be taking a punt on numbers but we have a decent starting pot of clients who have used the schemes in question. Assuming they will be on board, hopefully the per capita cost will be reasonable.

[GregRickshaw]

There was a lot of scaremongering on this forum at the time, which no doubt sent many people running to advisors or acceding to the repayment demands.

As someone above said, these loan schemes have been the gift which keeps on giving.

I hate to think how many £millions have been plundered over the years in:

1) fees collected by the original scheme providers
2) fees paid to advisors and lawyers to challenge APNs
3) fees for dodgy scams to try and circumvent the loan charge
4) money paid to scam artists (Felicitas, FS et al) in supposed loan repayments
5) fees paid to advisors to fend off said scam artists
6) fees paid to advisors and lawyers (Big Group et al) to challenge the underlying tax on loans

And it ain't done yet.

I suppose some solace can be sought in all of these 'group actions'.

For instance maybe the model is a pay as you go service to simply keep HMRC at arms length and to avoid having to deal with HMRC directly, I don't know but it seems that way. A convenience fee and while it may appear a waste of money possibly it makes some peoples lives less stressful.

Nothing will probably ever get actually done by these groups, has a class action/group action ever won or even gone to tribunal, Hoey seemed to be on his own.

But these groups then do seem to serve the purpose of rebutting HMRCs claims, by means of complex looking legal letters back and forth.

If anyone on here can confirm these groups managed to get their cases thrown out .... or maybe the group just keeps HMRC away.

Yes a cash cow for the groups but possibly peace of mind (albeit at a price) for the members.

[Fred Bloggs]

I suppose some solace can be sought in all of these 'group actions'.

For instance maybe the model is a pay as you go service to simply keep HMRC at arms length and to avoid having to deal with HMRC directly, I don't know but it seems that way. A convenience fee and while it may appear a waste of money possibly it makes some peoples lives less stressful.

Nothing will probably ever get actually done by these groups, has a class action/group action ever won or even gone to tribunal, Hoey seemed to be on his own.

But these groups then do seem to serve the purpose of rebutting HMRCs claims, by means of complex looking legal letters back and forth.

If anyone on here can confirm these groups managed to get their cases thrown out .... or maybe the group just keeps HMRC away.

Yes a cash cow for the groups but possibly peace of mind (albeit at a price) for the members.

You make fair points. I am actually curious how much people have paid into Big Group if it's still going? And did Big Group actually ever achieve anything for what it cost? I guess I'll never know.

[DealorNoDeal]

You make fair points. I am actually curious how much people have paid into Big Group if it's still going? And did Big Group actually ever achieve anything for what it cost? I guess I'll never know.

Big Group has been running for 7.5 years. As I recall, the subscription was £15+vat/month.

7.5 x 12 x £18 = £1620

But it was an "add to plan", so there were much larger ££££ contributions to be part of the litigation action.

And, at the end of the day, the only achievement that counts would be members not having to pay tax on the loans. That was the entire basis on which the group was started.

https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...big-group.html

"...therefore the only strategy is to defend a number of cases at Tribunal in the hope that a less than 100% victory for HMRC will force them to the table."

To date, they haven't had any hearings at Tribunal.

No doubt it will still be trundling on for many more years to come.

[GregRickshaw]

"...therefore the only strategy is to defend a number of cases at Tribunal in the hope that a less than 100% victory for HMRC will force them to the table."

Sounds exactly the same strategy being discussed for the MSC cases

[Fred Bloggs]

Big Group has been running for 7.5 years. As I recall, the subscription was £15+vat/month.

7.5 x 12 x £18 = £1620

But it was an "add to plan", so there were much larger ££££ contributions to be part of the litigation action.

And, at the end of the day, the only achievement that counts would be members not having to pay tax on the loans. That was the entire basis on which the group was started.

https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...big-group.html

"...therefore the only strategy is to defend a number of cases at Tribunal in the hope that a less than 100% victory for HMRC will force them to the table."

To date, they haven't had any hearings at Tribunal.

No doubt it will still be trundling on for many more years to come.

Thanks for the response.

Nice little earner. The longer this drags on, the more hostile the situation seems to get as the government gets ever more desperate for revenue. What a dilemma the Big Group members must now have. They can't stop paying else they won't benefit from any future successes. But if they do keep paying, it seems ever more likely that it's been money down the pan when the tax finally has to be paid.

[Fred Bloggs]

Sounds exactly the same strategy being discussed for the MSC cases

Is there another possible strategy? The only other strategy I can think of is to pay the overdue tax and get on with life?

[DealorNoDeal]

What a dilemma the Big Group members must now have. They can't stop paying else they won't benefit from any future successes. But if they do keep paying, it seems ever more likely that it's been money down the pan when the tax finally has to be paid.

Yep, it's the old sunk cost bias. I've fallen for that a few times. With many things in life, you are often better off cutting your losses.

[Fred Bloggs]

Yep, it's the old sunk cost bias. I've fallen for that a few times. With many things in life, you are often better off cutting your losses.

Or in this case paying the tax that's been avoided. I am not an expert by any means, just a voyeuristic layperson. From what I have seen of the various loan schemes, not one of them is ever going to result in working the way they were sold. As far as I can think, the best that can result is in delaying the inevitable.

[eek]

Or in this case paying the tax that's been avoided. I am not an expert by any means, just a voyeuristic layperson. From what I have seen of the various loan schemes, not one of them is ever going to result in working the way they were sold. As far as I can think, the best that can result is in delaying the inevitable.

And remember even delaying tax payment is regarded as advantageous by HMRC.