Reply to: Bin Ltd co ?

[alreadypacked]

Just my thoughts:

If you submit reasonable Ltd accounts, your name is unlikely to be on any list.
If you join one of these scheme and it is investigated, your name will be on the list.

My motto: Fly low keep under the radar.

HTH

[geoff from contracta IOM]

While I can't guarantee that I'll do 80%+ retention, I can usually get over 70% through careful management and doing everything myself. It also has the added benefit that I have absolutely no risk of HMRC giving me a hefty retrospective penalty. The final, hugely important, benefit it has for me is that I'm not waggling my willy in Hector's face saying "come audit me out of turn with your Special Compliance Office team".

I understand that you have a product to sell but being cavalier with its ethicability isn't going to get you too many new "sales". I get a perverse sort of pride that I can retain far more of my earnings legally and ethically while being able to get rid of Hector fairly quickly in an audit with no more than the occasional advisory notice.

Surely the most ethical thing for you to do following your logic is pay full PAYE on your drawings from your company, I take it its fair to assume given the retention you quoted you take divies. I don't drawn the line on what is ethical or not I only work on what is legal or not, ethics have nothing whatsoever to do with taxation if they did we would be a communist country and all work for the state if you were to follow it to the end of the line. Otherwise who is to decide where the line is ?

[craig1]

Close the loophole - I would imagine so, can't say when ,consultation documents suggest Mid 2012 at the earliest
Apply Retrospective - Clarification of the legislation will not work with this scheme which was how they tackled BN66, so new legislation is required to tackle this specific point

Odds of closing eventually - 100%
Odds of retrospective - less than 1 %

Additional retention while it lasts about 15%

Not hard to do the maths on that , engaging a tax professional to audit the scheme and decide if it is legal to use or not is about 400 quid not long to get a ROI

While I can't guarantee that I'll do 80%+ retention, I can usually get over 70% through careful management and doing everything myself. It also has the added benefit that I have absolutely no risk of HMRC giving me a hefty retrospective penalty. The final, hugely important, benefit it has for me is that I'm not waggling my willy in Hector's face saying "come audit me out of turn with your Special Compliance Office team".

I understand that you have a product to sell but being cavalier with its ethicability isn't going to get you too many new "sales". I get a perverse sort of pride that I can retain far more of my earnings legally and ethically while being able to get rid of Hector fairly quickly in an audit with no more than the occasional advisory notice.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

So you publicly admit that one of the things that may be outside your control is that HMRC will close this loophole down and apply punitive retrospective penalties and taxes. Care to put odds on the likelihood of this? 10% chance, 20, 30?

Close the loophole - I would imagine so, can't say when ,consultation documents suggest Mid 2012 at the earliest
Apply Retrospective - Clarification of the legislation will not work with this scheme which was how they tackled BN66, so new legislation is required to tackle this specific point

Odds of closing eventually - 100%
Odds of retrospective - less than 1 %

Additional retention while it lasts about 15%

Not hard to do the maths on that , engaging a tax professional to audit the scheme and decide if it is legal to use or not is about 400 quid not long to get a ROI

[JamJarST]

You do tend to find that most companies will indemnify themselves against events outside their control

So you publicly admit that one of the things that may be outside your control is that HMRC will close this loophole down and apply punitive retrospective penalties and taxes. Care to put odds on the likelihood of this? 10% chance, 20, 30?

[GillsMan]

You do tend to find that most companies will indemnify themselves against events outside their control

Yes, but not without just cause though.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Brilliant, so even the scheme provider thinks it is risky

You do tend to find that most companies will indemnify themselves against events outside their control

[NotAllThere]

No, they know it's not risky at all. For them.

[JamJarST]

That's what Geoff's website says.

Brilliant, so even the scheme provider thinks it is risky

[meanttobeworking]

Percieved by whom to be risky ? Certainly not the vast majority of informed professionals specializing in tax or the laws related to taxation. We work with numerous accountants, chartered tax advisers and solicitors on behalf of clients.

That's what Norla/Edge said.

Disclaimer: It is possible that [our] structure may be challenged by HMRC in the future or retrospective legislation may be introduced.

That's what Geoff's website says.

[eek]

I percieve it to be risky!

+1

[JamJarST]

It might not be as risky as some make out, the likely outcome is that HMRC will just close the loophole at some point and those on the scheme will have to find another hidey-hole. That said, there is always the outside chance that there will be retrospective taxation as well as a meaty penalty rate because HMRC may find it "dishonest".

Well it is dishonest. Any "reasonable man" can tell that keeping 85% of your income is too good to be true.

[craig1]

Percieved by whom to be risky ? Certainly not the vast majority of informed professionals specializing in tax or the laws related to taxation. We work with numerous accountants, chartered tax advisers and solicitors on behalf of clients. As for the ethical argument most proffessional advisers who are asked to audit our scheme are paid a fee for their work and don't actually care if it is compliant or not, they report the FACTS to their client as per their engagement. They all still manage to arrive at the same conclusion.

It might not be as risky as some make out, the likely outcome is that HMRC will just close the loophole at some point and those on the scheme will have to find another hidey-hole. That said, there is always the outside chance that there will be retrospective taxation as well as a meaty penalty rate because HMRC may find it "dishonest".

[GillsMan]

Percieved by whom to be risky ?

I don't know, maybe the large numbers of people who have trusted similar schemes, or schemes of this ilk, who have faced HMRC investigation, retrospective tax demands and fines, and all that sort of jazz.

[JamJarST]

Percieved by whom to be risky ? Certainly not the vast majority of informed professionals specializing in tax or the laws related to taxation. We work with numerous accountants, chartered tax advisers and solicitors on behalf of clients. As for the ethical argument most proffessional advisers who are asked to audit our scheme are paid a fee for their work and don't actually care if it is compliant or not, they report the FACTS to their client as per their engagement. They all still manage to arrive at the same conclusion.

I percieve it to be risky!