HMRC enquiries for Talent Resource Management (TRM) / Cherrylon / Trentburg Schemes

[webberg]

Late CLSO material

It would appear that in some cases, the demise of Taxtalk has led to some of their clients who expressed an interest in settling, being in receipt of HMRC calculations only in the last few days.

With a deadline for ACCEPTANCE of TODAY - that leaves little time to consider the options.

If this is you.

1. CALL HMRC as soon as you can, explain the circumstances and ask for an extension.

2. check the calculation carefully (as it appears that HMRC has not processed data it has been given)

3. if in doubt, get advice.

[chamsuresh]

And please send scheme membership proof when emailing. I am sure you understand why

Hello,

I have a similar issue for tax year 08/09 09/10. My scheme was called Payscheme plus. PAYE salary was paid from TRM and Loan facility was provided by Redding finance.

Regards,
Chamu

[RSB]

please can I request rights to be able to send personal messages?

[pateen]

Does anybidy have contact details for talent.
I was with them back ine 2009 & 2010.

P

[webberg]

Does anybidy have contact details for talent.
I was with them back ine 2009 & 2010.

P

They are long gone.

TT Intelligence seems to be the route to them.

[pateen]

They are long gone.

TT Intelligence seems to be the route to them.

Thanks Webberg.

I presume its these guys
http://ww w.tt-intelligence.co.uk/ - TT Intelligence - Home

[webberg]

Thanks Webberg.

I presume its these guys
TT Intelligence - Home

Probably.

Used to be Tax Talk (which I think went pop).

They were looking after a lot of TRM, Trentbury, Cherrylon people.

Just be careful with those schemes as I think they used foreign currency and that brings a number of complications.

[webberg]

I've been asked to explain a little more about the implications of foreign currency loans being involved in structures.

The following is not necessarily therefore solely for the TRM range of schemes, but would apply to others which used a similar mechanism.

The claim made by scheme promoters is that sterling went to a trust where it was converted into something else (we'll use Zim $) and loaned to you. At the same time, you would have requested that the trust convert the Zim $ back to sterling and remit the loan in sterling.

The Zim $ loan was then depreciating due to the softness of that currency. Therefore £100 was worth say Zim $1m at the outset of the loan, but a year or so later, perhaps Zim $1m was worth £10. (I exaggerate for effect).

Some schemes went further and swapped currencies at intervals, resulting in perhaps a faster depreciation.

At some point, you are asked for £10 to "repay" the loan, or the loan is written off as being uneconomic to collect.

HMRC tried to cover this situation in their legislation on the loan charge. In particular they claim:

1. It is necessary to start with the sterling value of the payment at the time it was made.
2. Depreciation is not a payment in money of the loan and can be ignored.
3. The repayment at a lower sterling value may reduce the original sterling value by the amount repaid in sterling.
4. The write off can be ignored.

The underlying assumption here is that the loan was - at some point - actually in Zim $. There is a tax case (Boyle) which was heard at the FTT and involved a scheme called Sandfield.

The same mechanism was claimed to have been used. HMRC attacked it on the grounds that the forex transactions had not taken place and that the loans were never at any time in non sterling currency. The Judge agreed. (And came close to saying that there was fraud involved).

So, if the currency loan existed and has been legally written off, does the loan charge legislation still bite?

If the argument is that the loan was never in foreign currency and was always in sterling, then would a legal write off mean that the loan did not exist at the trigger date in March 2016?

I don't know.

It seems odd though that we have legislation that seems to acknowledge that currency loans exist and an HMRC argument in Court that they do not.

I'm sure that the "specific circumstances" argument will be rolled out to distinguish the positions.

I'm equally sure that in the cases I've examined, the existence or otherwise of non sterling funds is of somewhat debatable provenance. I'm not saying that I've seen all such schemes nor that I have detailed bank statements from lenders which show that they never had Zim $ (in this instance), but equally I have no proof otherwise.

Let the games begin.

[pateen]

I guess more importantly, is this depreciating ccy scheme covered by Big Group and are the arguments as strong as say the Rangers case for these scheme types?

[webberg]

I guess more importantly, is this depreciating ccy scheme covered by Big Group and are the arguments as strong as say the Rangers case for these scheme types?

Yes it's part of Big group.

As to strength, we will explain what we do and you have to make a judgement. We believe we have a case. Call us.