Edge EBT thread

[Tweedle]

Thank you Admin.

My credentials are as a CTA with over 14 years PQE.
Many thanks

With respect Saleos, can you let the forum know how we can verify your credentials?
I imagine I speak for many of us when I say we had previously thought we'd carried out the necessary DD on Edge, when in fact all we'd done was speak to them and check their website and believed what we saw and heard, and that landed us all in potentially very hot water financially.

I've looked at the CIoT site, but cannot see a list of members, only the following:
The Chartered Institute of Taxation | About Us | Find a CTA
but cannot see you on there....maybe I'm not searching correctly...
The only google finds I'm getting are your company website and your LinkedIn page.

I'm sure you'll be happy to clear this up before we all sign up and hand over quantities of cash...
thanks.

[TheEdge]

Blended approach = (way) more funding

At this point a barrister versed in EBT set-up (or as DonkeyRhubarb suggests even the actual QC) should be asked to review a tax advisors opinion on scheme set-up - I would expect this to be included as part of Saleos's proposal

This would surely create a stronger Fight or Flight decision. At this point step an experienced barrister could provide the tax consultant (and those funding this - us) with more indicative costings.

Appreciate that QC costs could spiral (although lets not guess) but the broader point has to be that a tax advisor will need to work (at some point) with a tax avoidance specialist QC to reinforce any tech / implementation arguments - and that the Saleos proposal doesn't as far as I am aware include that QC involvement. Therefore the question remains: how complete is the proposal and how far will the proposed amount each contractor is being asked to contribute go? Note: This is NOT intended in any way as a criticism of Saleos or his offering.

[SimonJones]

So HMRC are celebrating. They've proved contractors are not Tax experts and are daft to believe the advice of Tax barristers who review schemes marketed to us as ways to avoid worrying about IR35 and are confirmed by these "experts" as entirely legitimate and acknowledged by HMRC as compliant with all necessary legislation.....
Should we stop investing in ISAs? Currently a legitimate way to minimise payment of tax, but will they change their minds on that in the future, have we been equally daft to believe the IFA "experts" who've sold us these?

I've had various views from "experts" on the meaning of this cases outcome - it was an entirely different set up to Edge, but HMRC would have us all believe its a decider for all EBT schemes....the date of the Rangers (Murray holdings) case has been set for 24th Feb, I'm told, so let's see what that brings.

The above quote is indeed very true, as when I appealed earlier this year, I was advised by Edge that they are waiting on the Rangers (Murray Holdings) case as their ebt scheme hinges on this. More information on this matter would be useful.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

And at this stage exactly what would you instruct such eminent barristers to do for your fictitious group? How far do you seriously expect £100K to go. It certainly won't get you to the courthouse steps, which if you are extremely lucky is where you could hope HMRC to settle!

The FTT is not a one-off step, it's the First Tier. Think in terms of 7 figures for the long haul. Maybe put a 2 or a 3 at the start of that number......

£100k wouldn't take you all the way:

First-tier tribunal
Upper tribunal
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court

But it would be a good start.

Besides, the case may never get that far. At each court, either side would need to seek permission to appeal which may not be granted. This has to be taken one step at a time, and initially you shouldn't be thinking beyond being prepared for the FTT.

[Ron Swanson]

At this point a barrister versed in EBT set-up (or as DonkeyRhubarb suggests even the actual QC) should be asked to review a tax advisors opinion on scheme set-up - I would expect this to be included as part of Saleos's proposal

This would surely create a stronger Fight or Flight decision. At this point step an experienced barrister could provide the tax consultant (and those funding this - us) with more indicative costings.

Appreciate that QC costs could spiral (although lets not guess) but the broader point has to be that a tax advisor will need to work (at some point) with a tax avoidance specialist QC to reinforce any tech / implementation arguments - and that the Saleos proposal doesn't as far as I am aware include that QC involvement. Therefore the question remains: how complete is the proposal and how far will the proposed amount each contractor is being asked to contribute go? Note: This is NOT intended in any way as a criticism of Saleos or his offering.

Saleos' proposal not withstanding, having rung around a few acountants, tax specialists, advisors, etc. (but not barristers) - the common theme is that they will act as the middle-man between you and HMRC with a view to trying to make it go away or reduce the liability. But if they can't and HMRC want to take it to FTT - that is where their service ends, in terms of the initial money thay you have paid them. They will obvioulsy provide a recommendation in terms of fight or not-fight at that point and a range of services after that - but the cost landscape changes dramatically from there onwards.

[Saleos]

Litigation Costs

Saleos' proposal not withstanding, having rung around a few acountants, tax specialists, advisors, etc. (but not barristers) - the common theme is that they will act as the middle-man between you and HMRC with a view to trying to make it go away or reduce the liability. But if they can't and HMRC want to take it to FTT - that is where their service ends, in terms of the initial money thay you have paid them. They will obvioulsy provide a recommendation in terms of fight or not-fight at that point and a range of services after that - but the cost landscape changes dramatically from there onwards.

For readers speculating on the costs of future defence I am happy to share the following direct experience:

1. In Charlton (the discovery case in which I was a Director of the firm which instructed Counsel and in which I appeared as a witness) Counsel's fees to the First Tier Tribunal only were circa £60K. That did not include our own costs.

2. I am involved in a group litigation on a non-contractor EBT case in which the group has instructed a leading London law firm and QC to take a test case to the FTT. That will be heard in 2014 (the dates have not yet been agreed). The costs quoted for both the lawyers and Counsel are circa £300K (total).

These are two real cases that show the spectrum of costs.

Whilst the costs actually decrease on appeal from the FTT to the Upper Tribunal (as all of the factual matters are dealt with in the FTT) I have always been quoted between £500K and £1m by the clerks of the leading tax chambers to take a case all the way (which often is now the Court of Appeal with the Supreme Court increasingly reluctant to hear direct tax cases in recent times).

So litigation is very expensive.

It is not certain however that Edge need ever be litigated (assuming that the funds aren't available to do so). Glasgow Rangers EBT case is to be heard in the Upper Tribunal over several dates in Q1 of 2014, and the other EBT case in which I am involved will also hit the FTT this coming year. Further, it is quite possible that another Contractor arrangement may be litigated before Edge gets that far (and be far more determinative that Boyle). I know of a number that are significantly more advanced that the Edge enquiries.

I'd suggest worrying about litigation only if it becomes necessary as there is much to deal with before that even becomes a possibility.

[Saleos]

At this point a barrister versed in EBT set-up (or as DonkeyRhubarb suggests even the actual QC) should be asked to review a tax advisors opinion on scheme set-up - I would expect this to be included as part of Saleos's proposal

This would surely create a stronger Fight or Flight decision. At this point step an experienced barrister could provide the tax consultant (and those funding this - us) with more indicative costings.

Appreciate that QC costs could spiral (although lets not guess) but the broader point has to be that a tax advisor will need to work (at some point) with a tax avoidance specialist QC to reinforce any tech / implementation arguments - and that the Saleos proposal doesn't as far as I am aware include that QC involvement. Therefore the question remains: how complete is the proposal and how far will the proposed amount each contractor is being asked to contribute go? Note: This is NOT intended in any way as a criticism of Saleos or his offering.

The Edge:

At this stage I am confident I don't need to spend incur the costs of Counsel on behalf of members although anyone wishing to do so can of course do so at any time. Based on my (extensive) experience of instructing Counsel you should budget between £10K to £75K depending on who you use and how detailed the instructions are.

The reason my proposal doesn't include going to Counsel is because I already hold two opinions from leading QC's (both in Pump Court Tax Chambers) on other virtually identical arrangements. I have access to one more. Furthermore I instructed Counsel directly on the very points I expect HMRC to raise in the past six months. Indeed, I have spent the past decade instructing and discussing with Counsel the very arguments HMRC will raise. That is not to say I have all of the answers for no one does; but I certainly have enough experience and technical knowledge in this area to form a professional view and to base my advice on that accordingly. And to set out those views to HMRC. I am also experienced enough to know when the time is needed to get Counsel involved and as my proposal sets out if that becomes necessary I will advise the Group accordingly.

Finally I know that Edge took the opinion of Counsel on the structure when it was set up. I still hope that I may be able to obtain a copy of that should it be necessary.

[Saleos]

Saleos Credentials Verification

I understand the caution so:

My membership number of the CIOT is 109980. I have been a member since 1999. If you wish to call the CIOT I am sure they would be able to verify my professional qualification but little more.

Credentials wise on Discovery you can verify my participation in the Charlton case by reading the Judgement here: Charlton & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 467 (TC) (13 July 2011)

Beyond that it is difficult to provide a great deal more information beyond that on my company website.

Should one member wish to take personal references on behalf of the group I would be happy to privately provide a couple of names of experienced, highly respected, tax practitioners who would vouch for my expertise. Obviously I cannot do this for everyone!

I also know that a number of the contractors I am already representing in other structures are on this site and perhaps they may be good enough to post their experiences of my services.

With respect Saleos, can you let the forum know how we can verify your credentials?
I imagine I speak for many of us when I say we had previously thought we'd carried out the necessary DD on Edge, when in fact all we'd done was speak to them and check their website and believed what we saw and heard, and that landed us all in potentially very hot water financially.

I've looked at the CIoT site, but cannot see a list of members, only the following:
The Chartered Institute of Taxation | About Us | Find a CTA
but cannot see you on there....maybe I'm not searching correctly...
The only google finds I'm getting are your company website and your LinkedIn page.

I'm sure you'll be happy to clear this up before we all sign up and hand over quantities of cash...
thanks.

[TheDandy]

I understand the caution so:

My membership number of the CIOT is 109980. I have been a member since 1999. If you wish to call the CIOT I am sure they would be able to verify my professional qualification but little more.

Credentials wise on Discovery you can verify my participation in the Charlton case by reading the Judgement here: Charlton & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 467 (TC) (13 July 2011)

Beyond that it is difficult to provide a great deal more information beyond that on my company website.

Should one member wish to take personal references on behalf of the group I would be happy to privately provide a couple of names of experienced, highly respected, tax practitioners who would vouch for my expertise. Obviously I cannot do this for everyone!

I also know that a number of the contractors I am already representing in other structures are on this site and perhaps they may be good enough to post their experiences of my services.

I should be grateful for the personal references. You have my contact details.

[GoneSouth]

Stay focussed

Hello all, we seem to be getting a bit sidetracked with conversations that have no benefit at this stage.

I'm going to repeat my earlier advice regarding group representation

If you have any desire to pursue group representation please

Request PM (private message) access if you don't already have it. You can post a request or contact the admins via this page: http://forums.contractoruk.com/sendmessage.php

PM TheDandy here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/priva...=newpm&u=39502
PM Saleos here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/priva...=newpm&u=41765

then make a decision if you have interest in one or both of the groups and if you are willing to foot the likely costs and advise the organiser(s) accordingly

Simply posting a desire to join a group will not achieve anything.