Edge EBT thread

[cerner]

The focus should not be upon what HMRC "discovered" but rather whether the information disclosed upon the tax return was sufficient such that a hypothetical officer of HMRC should have been aware of the actual insufficiency before the expiry of the statutory enquiry window.

All the case law points to inclusion of the DoTAS number on the return being crucial.

I'm sorry but even if we disregard the discovery lies it's also not the case that some tax inspector back then came to different conclusion to a tax inspector today. Back then they thought it was income and took appropriate action they deemed necessary at the time even thought the action they took was against the law. Fast forward to now they still think it's an income but decided to take DIFFERENT ACTION. You see it's not about making different discoveries by different tax inspectors. it's about deciding to take different action than one taken back then. How can that be legal or allowed to happen?

If they had taken the action they trying to take now back then instead of just increasing our tax code and taxing the interest free part, I'm sure many people will not have continued with the scheme. So in fact you can argue that the action they took back then is complicit in many people continuing with the scheme by thinking if that's all it was then it's a small price to pay to stay in the scheme.

[cerner]

Stick Together

There have been many posts on here about group representation. In my view sticking together as ONE group is absolutely vital to giving us the best flexibility of approach as things go forward and events unfold. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we are far stronger as one group, rather than a fragmented set of groups plus individuals.

I have been in touch with The Dandy now for several months and I would strongly urge that anyone who has appealed these demands gets in touch with him to at least hear what he has to say.

While other options on here are obviously of great interest, and may well be of use by the group, it actually makes sense that if we are to follow them, we should engage with them as a single group.

Makes absolutely perfect sense. "Together as a group we are stronger"

The internet age makes group collaboration much easier so we should take full advantage.

The fragmented groups we have here should merge together as ONE solid group.

[david se london]

comparison of TheDandy & Saleos 'group' approaches - scope/content

All,

there look to be 2 contrasting approaches on the table

1/ TheDandy, who to his credit has independently contacted a tax savvy barrister (not QC) and identified an approach that would determine a contemporary 'legal opinion' on the Edge EBT scheme (@15K total cost) and then leaves open what to do next, with no quoted costs to go forward for the engagement with HMRC that would almost certainly follow. Initial cost pp will depend on how many folk take up this option, current quotes might be @600-700pp

2/ Saleos (credentials to be verified but looks bonafida) offering a more holistic option for 750pp that dispenses with getting legal opinion as he considers he is sufficiently in the loop already, with 'very similar' in-flight cases in his tax advisor portfolio and recent access to QC opinion. This option to include ongoing engagement with HMRC on groups' behalf & 'admin' aspects included.

Both stop where serious litigation (FTT) might kick in.

I hope this is a reasonably accurate if simplistic précis of the two offers.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

All,

there look to be 2 contrasting approaches on the table

1/ TheDandy, who to his credit has independently contacted a tax savvy barrister (not QC) and identified an approach that would determine a contemporary 'legal opinion' on the Edge EBT scheme (@15K total cost) and then leaves open what to do next, with no quoted costs to go forward for the engagement with HMRC that would almost certainly follow. Initial cost pp will depend on how many folk take up this option, current quotes might be @600-700pp

2/ Saleos (credentials to be verified but looks bonafida) offering a more holistic option for 750pp that dispenses with getting legal opinion as he considers he is sufficiently in the loop already, with 'very similar' in-flight cases in his tax advisor portfolio and recent access to QC opinion. This option to include ongoing engagement with HMRC on groups' behalf & 'admin' aspects included.

Both stop where serious litigation (FTT) might kick in.

I hope this is a reasonably accurate if simplistic précis of the two offers.

If Saleos can get Edge to advocate his offering to all clients, then that might give him an edge if you forgive the pun.

The more people who join the group the stronger you will be both in terms of the fighting fund and if you ever decide to enter negotiations with HMRC.

Whatever you do, don't fragment into splinter groups.

[david se london]

comparison of TheDandy & Saleos 'group' approaches - scope/content, other stuff

I should also add

1/ there are minimum number take-up associated with both options, in both cases @25. TheDandy looks to have @ that number, no idea on Saleos current takeup.

2/ Saleos proposal also states: I will conduct an initial review of generic scheme documentation to form a view on the prospects of success and advise members of the group accordingly. N.B. Although I expect that review to be favorable (based on historic knowledge, review of disclosure, and conversations with participants and those involved with its implementation) should that review lead me to conclude that there are no prospects of success two-thirds of the fees paid will be refunded.

[JHW]

The Dandy

All,

there look to be 2 contrasting approaches on the table

1/ TheDandy, who to his credit has independently contacted a tax savvy barrister (not QC) and identified an approach that would determine a contemporary 'legal opinion' on the Edge EBT scheme (@15K total cost) and then leaves open what to do next, with no quoted costs to go forward for the engagement with HMRC that would almost certainly follow. Initial cost pp will depend on how many folk take up this option, current quotes might be @600-700pp

2/ Saleos (credentials to be verified but looks bonafida) offering a more holistic option for 750pp that dispenses with getting legal opinion as he considers he is sufficiently in the loop already, with 'very similar' in-flight cases in his tax advisor portfolio and recent access to QC opinion. This option to include ongoing engagement with HMRC on groups' behalf & 'admin' aspects included.

Both stop where serious litigation (FTT) might kick in.

I hope this is a reasonably accurate if simplistic précis of the two offers.

David,

The Dandy is also talking to Saleos. The two options above are both still open in terms of the group being pulled together by the Dandy. It is not quite a case of people having to jump in an either/or direction quite yet that is for sure.

I would urge people to get in touch with The Dandy to be part of what is decided as a group. They really have nothing to lose and lots to gain.

There is NO other group at the moment. Splitting apart and not sticking together is a big mistake.

JHW

[TheDandy]

I should also add

1/ there are minimum number take-up associated with both options, in both cases @25. TheDandy looks to have @ that number, no idea on Saleos current takeup.

2/ Saleos proposal also states: I will conduct an initial review of generic scheme documentation to form a view on the prospects of success and advise members of the group accordingly. N.B. Although I expect that review to be favorable (based on historic knowledge, review of disclosure, and conversations with participants and those involved with its implementation) should that review lead me to conclude that there are no prospects of success two-thirds of the fees paid will be refunded.

I wonder which part of the email correspondence with me [you agreed to] which stated that you should not disclose anything publicly about the group effort organised by me that you did not understand?

Perhaps you thought you could supplement your own interpretation upon that. Whether you like the approach or not is really not a matter for you to unilaterally decide. This policy was made for good reason and does not have to be justified to anyone. If anything you have just demonstrated why such an approach was taken, namely that you have not actually been factual in your description, and on a more basic level you cannot be trusted with a simple, agreement.

If anyone wishes to know about the group they have all the instructions required to gain the information and inform their own opinion, rather than taking soundbites from others.

For the record this person has not committed to the group I have organised and is sitting on the fence; naturally one would assume because they are waiting to see how the numbers shape up in any particular camp.

You can contact me, and regardless of the interpretation poorly explained by the poster you will actually find that speaking to the horses mouth is often the most enlightened path.

[david se london]

JHW Im ok with this;

one group, two potential approaches to group representation, and we must avoid being proprietorial.

Lets see what TheDandy makes of the two distinct approaches, pros & cons.

David

[cerner]

I wonder which part of the email correspondence with me [you agreed to] which stated that you should not disclose anything publicly about the group effort organised by me that you did not understand?

Perhaps you thought you could supplement your own interpretation upon that. Whether you like the approach or not is really not a matter for you to unilaterally decide. This policy was made for good reason and does not have to be justified to anyone. If anything you have just demonstrated why such an approach was taken, namely that you have not actually been factual in your description, and on a more basic level you cannot be trusted with a simple, agreement.

If anyone wishes to know about the group they have all the instructions required to gain the information and inform their own opinion, rather than taking soundbites from others.

For the record this person has not committed to the group I have organised and is sitting on the fence; naturally one would assume because they are waiting to see how the numbers shape up in any particular camp.

You can contact me, and regardless of the interpretation poorly explained by the poster you will actually find that speaking to the horses mouth is often the most enlightened path.

Why would you be so secretive about the numbers signed up to the group? If I joined I would want hard evidence on the numbers in the group and not just the numbers that I'm told. Being that the true numbers will affect amount of my contribution. This should be quite open.

[TheDandy]

Why would you be so secretive about the numbers signed up to the group? If I joined I would want hard evidence on the numbers in the group and not just the numbers that I'm told. Being that the true numbers will affect amount of my contribution. This should be quite open.

I haven't told you anything (I think the poster above tried to do that) and haven't been secretive about anything. There are just particular ways of doing things that have been adopted and implemented from the start since March.