• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Edge EBT thread

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    There are over 900 people who used Edge and therefore if former employees actually got their act together there are plenty of people to contribute to a fighting fund at a reasonable cost to each.

    Your view of Edge/Redstone/Bedouin being all very close is probably correct though. In my personally view you should all expect more support from them. But you should be wary of making accusations of them promoting an illegal scam. Nothing I have seen suggests it was either (and these latest rules do not make it so) so you leave yourself open to legal action for making public claims to that effect if Edge/Redstone take offence.

    As to action against them the "product" they offered is not regulated and not covered by he FSA. You may want to look at whether you were induced into the arrangements by misrepresentations and there are a handful of ambulance chasing firms who would no doubt take it on for the disgruntled at a cost but problems you'll face are;

    No tax liability has actually been held to be due yet.
    The accelerated payment regime may "simply" require you to pay the disputed tax whilst the liability is determined.

    This is new, retrospective, legislation which cannot reasonably have been foreseen several years ago. In that respect your anger is focused on the wrong people.

    Edge being outside the UK is outside th scope of PAYE which is territorially limited.

    The ToAA provisions, if they apply, make it a personal liability not one of Edge.

    You'd also have to show your loss. What is it given that any tax liability on your earnings was always your own?

    I don't wish to rule out action against Edge or dismiss your prospects but I do think it important that the key issues are clear


    Originally posted by gettingangry View Post
    "In my experience litigation to the FTT using a good law firm with extensive tax litigation expertise and experience and a good Counsel of suitable standing will cost at least £200,000; more likely £300,000 as HMRC have largely yet to go through even the document gathering stage of their enquiry."

    Who is going to pay this sort of money bearing in mind that you could possibly end up losing - you'll need to fund the cost as well as having to pay the tax etc. I don't know how many people are in any of the groups mentioned but I doubt it's more than 25 - are you all chipping in £12500?

    I know Edge have stopped trading (very conveniently) but Redstone are just Edge in another name - what sort of recourse do we have with these people for selling us what is now being deemed as an illegal scam

    Comment


      I would concur with Saleos - be careful with your accusations or you might (make that will) find your posts cut/removed.

      Most of these schemes are legal, the problem lies with whether it's legal for UK tax residents to use them. No matter what advice people were given, the decision to use them ultimately lies with the punter.
      "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
      - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

      Comment


        Yup.

        Originally posted by cojak View Post
        I would concur with Saleos - be careful with your accusations or you might (make that will) find your posts cut/removed.

        Most of these schemes are legal, the problem lies with whether it's legal for UK tax residents to use them. No matter what advice people were given, the decision to use them ultimately lies with the punter.
        To just to echo this. Well structured EBTs may well have been effective and, arguably, still could be regarded as defensible post Boyle.
        The issue is, given the proposed legislation, how you defend that position in a court of law.

        Comment


          Admittedly 'illegal scam' may have been a bit hasty - but as I see it, I am now being asked to pay tax on a scheme that said I would not have to pay, and for the privilege I paid them 10%

          Comment


            Originally posted by gettingangry View Post
            Admittedly 'illegal scam' may have been a bit hasty - but as I see it, I am now being asked to pay tax on a scheme that said I would not have to pay, and for the privilege I paid them 10%
            Yebbut... The point is it's HMRC you have to convince. You got bad advice and acted on it in good faith: fair enough except that doesn't actually count for anything. HMRC is convinced you earned £n and therefore you should have paid £(n x 20%)-ish in taxes as a result and you haven't yet done so.

            Sadly that's about where you - and a lot of other people - are at the moment. So don't blame the scheme, nor HMRC, blame whoever it was told the original sales pitch.
            Blog? What blog...?

            Comment


              To be fair, none of the scheme promoters could have predicted that the Government would introduce new rules to make people pay the tax up front in disputes dating back up to 10 years.

              The trouble is tax avoidance schemes, and I don't just mean the contractor ones, got too damn popular. The 43,000 cases being hit by the new rules represent over £7bn in tax.

              Comment


                Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                To be fair, none of the scheme promoters could have predicted that the Government would introduce new rules to make people pay the tax up front in disputes dating back up to 10 years.

                The trouble is tax avoidance schemes, and I don't just mean the contractor ones, got too damn popular. The 43,000 cases being hit by the new rules represent over £7bn in tax.
                I agree it is the retrospective nature of this that is the most concerning as has been said on other fora these rules would have changed everyone's attitude towards using these schemes. It will be interesting to see how many of them manage to survive in the next FY as I can see a lot of current scheme users moving back into Ltd companies ran by their spouses.

                DL

                Comment


                  Is it actually retrospective though? My understanding (which may be flawed, of course) is that all claims to date go back to Tax Year 2008-09, which is the one relevant to when they put out the stake in the ground in the December Budget Statement about addressing these schemes from that point onwards.
                  Blog? What blog...?

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
                    Is it actually retrospective though? My understanding (which may be flawed, of course) is that all claims to date go back to Tax Year 2008-09, which is the one relevant to when they put out the stake in the ground in the December Budget Statement about addressing these schemes from that point onwards.
                    The proposed legislation applies to any scheme since 2004 when DOTAS came in. And it's not just contractor schemes. It also affects, for example, stamp duty and film partnership schemes.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by malvolio View Post
                      Is it actually retrospective though? My understanding (which may be flawed, of course) is that all claims to date go back to Tax Year 2008-09, which is the one relevant to when they put out the stake in the ground in the December Budget Statement about addressing these schemes from that point onwards.
                      CIOT would understand it better than most and as they called it retrospective we should agree on that without much worry

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X