Groups - forming, storming, norming, reforming

[cojak]

I'd certainly welcome some sort of group where I could, as a minimum share and receive advice, but ideally could mount some sort of challenge.

I'm currently trying to reach a conclusion in relation to the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme and it certainly feels as though HMRC can do whatever they please and I have little option but to pay what they decide is owing.

Following the Boyle case, a quick summary would be:

in addition to tax on the monies received, HMRC are applying tax based on anti-avoidance rules referred to as Transfer Of Assets Abroad (TOAA) that amounts to about 9% of the gross invoiced amounts (which they've estimated) plus interest and other penalties.


All in all, this amounts to roughly 75% of what I received, which I personally feel is excessive.

While I appreciate that each scheme has its differences, from what I've seen of the Boyle case, which forms the basis of HMRC's judgement in my case, those differences may not matter much. The judge pretty much ignored the mechanics of the scheme, deeming them artificial and instead sighted the obvious gain Mr Boyle recieved (in my case the net take-home was roughly the same as a limited company outside IR35). He also agreed to HMRC's request that the TOAA rule could be applied as the monies had gone via the IOM.

If this stance is taken accross the board then pretty much all the schemes, at least the ones I know of, will leave the uses in pretty much the same boat as I now find myself.

And finally, with regards to mis-selling I feel there is certainly a case to answer there.

Without a doubt, the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme came with a sales pitch and accompanying QC opinion - this final piece being what convinced my everything was above board. I believe a positive QC opinion has been a common element in many of the schemes, however HMRC opinion and subsequent FTT rulings would suggest this opinion was simply not worth the paper it was written on leaving me having paid a considerable fees for advice that has subsequently proved worthless and considerably worse off than if I had worked via a limited company.

Needless to say, if something does come together I'd be more than interested.

Just to make clear - you need to go back to the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme and find out who has already formed a group. http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...as-victim.html

If there is no group already created then YOU need to create the group. PM convict/The Dandy/turnover for help on how to create your group.

Posters like Saleos/Rob79 DO NOT form and run groups, Saleos is commissioned by the group to provide professional help. Rob79 does not do that as his company does not do that aspect of work (his company chases after the providers I believe).

You are going to have to help yourselves guys as it doesn't appear as if anyone else from the scheme will...

[TheDandy]

Thus at this point in time, paying an APN is a better option then settling.

If you can afford to pay the APN.

[StrengthInNumbers]

Boyle is for scaring

Boyle's scheme was shambles - FX never existed, Loan were paid in GBP and settled within a year. HMRC can say what they want to, out of court but if your scheme was not based on depreciation of FX, it stops their. Even if the scheme was based on depreciation of FX and FX EXISTED AND SOLD/BROUGHT AT MARKET FX RATEs, you have a strong case.

In many cases where the scheme was Contractor an Employee, IOM based employer and payments as salary and loan - schemes are completely different to Boyle but HMRC has only Boyle to hang on to and just doing that. In Loan based contractor scheme to be proper, it has to have proper loan documents etc and executed properly.

Above said, ToAA is the new weapon from HMRC as they lost the "EBT loans are not loans" argument. At the moment, we have to wait and see how ToAA story unfolds. What could be great is if heads of groups get some clear advice on ToAA together - only courts will make a final court but independent assessment of how strong HMRC's case is will let us make better decisions. I met an independent accountant who was of the opinion that ToAA case is very strong for HMRC but scheme providers are ready to go to Tribunal PUTTING their own money on line saying ToAA does not apply. Thus at this point in time, paying an APN is a better option then settling. Only time will clear the situation regarding ToAA.

HMRC will be stupid to use Boyle and issue follower notice as that will be a great tool to win JR against HMRC

[jbryce]

I'd certainly welcome some sort of group where I could, as a minimum share and receive advice, but ideally could mount some sort of challenge.

I'm currently trying to reach a conclusion in relation to the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme and it certainly feels as though HMRC can do whatever they please and I have little option but to pay what they decide is owing.

Following the Boyle case, a quick summary would be:

in addition to tax on the monies received, HMRC are applying tax based on anti-avoidance rules referred to as Transfer Of Assets Abroad (TOAA) that amounts to about 9% of the gross invoiced amounts (which they've estimated) plus interest and other penalties.


All in all, this amounts to roughly 75% of what I received, which I personally feel is excessive.

While I appreciate that each scheme has its differences, from what I've seen of the Boyle case, which forms the basis of HMRC's judgement in my case, those differences may not matter much. The judge pretty much ignored the mechanics of the scheme, deeming them artificial and instead sighted the obvious gain Mr Boyle recieved (in my case the net take-home was roughly the same as a limited company outside IR35). He also agreed to HMRC's request that the TOAA rule could be applied as the monies had gone via the IOM.

If this stance is taken accross the board then pretty much all the schemes, at least the ones I know of, will leave the uses in pretty much the same boat as I now find myself.

And finally, with regards to mis-selling I feel there is certainly a case to answer there.

Without a doubt, the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme came with a sales pitch and accompanying QC opinion - this final piece being what convinced my everything was above board. I believe a positive QC opinion has been a common element in many of the schemes, however HMRC opinion and subsequent FTT rulings would suggest this opinion was simply not worth the paper it was written on leaving me having paid a considerable fees for advice that has subsequently proved worthless and considerably worse off than if I had worked via a limited company.

Needless to say, if something does come together I'd be more than interested.

We all consider groups to be a means of fighting HMRC. Perhaps that battle is lost - maybe time to examine going after the promoters.?

[nickersan]

Feeling I've been had

I'd certainly welcome some sort of group where I could, as a minimum share and receive advice, but ideally could mount some sort of challenge.

I'm currently trying to reach a conclusion in relation to the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme and it certainly feels as though HMRC can do whatever they please and I have little option but to pay what they decide is owing.

Following the Boyle case, a quick summary would be:

in addition to tax on the monies received, HMRC are applying tax based on anti-avoidance rules referred to as Transfer Of Assets Abroad (TOAA) that amounts to about 9% of the gross invoiced amounts (which they've estimated) plus interest and other penalties.


All in all, this amounts to roughly 75% of what I received, which I personally feel is excessive.

While I appreciate that each scheme has its differences, from what I've seen of the Boyle case, which forms the basis of HMRC's judgement in my case, those differences may not matter much. The judge pretty much ignored the mechanics of the scheme, deeming them artificial and instead sighted the obvious gain Mr Boyle recieved (in my case the net take-home was roughly the same as a limited company outside IR35). He also agreed to HMRC's request that the TOAA rule could be applied as the monies had gone via the IOM.

If this stance is taken accross the board then pretty much all the schemes, at least the ones I know of, will leave the uses in pretty much the same boat as I now find myself.

And finally, with regards to mis-selling I feel there is certainly a case to answer there.

Without a doubt, the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme came with a sales pitch and accompanying QC opinion - this final piece being what convinced my everything was above board. I believe a positive QC opinion has been a common element in many of the schemes, however HMRC opinion and subsequent FTT rulings would suggest this opinion was simply not worth the paper it was written on leaving me having paid a considerable fees for advice that has subsequently proved worthless and considerably worse off than if I had worked via a limited company.

Needless to say, if something does come together I'd be more than interested.

[Rob79]

Thanks for the support.

For the record, I have no issue if people have a problem with what I post and nobody has a monopoly on the truth.

It is perhaps better, if others have similar views, to PM me and I'll respond outside a public forum.

[davedavis]

You have stated that your day job is taking more time so you can't post as much here anymore, and the "other issues" make if difficult for you spend time posting here.

So please keep to your word, and move on. Time to go.



Thanks!

Some people ....

[TykeMerc]

You have stated that your day job is taking more time so you can't post as much here anymore, and the "other issues" make if difficult for you spend time posting here.

So please keep to your word, and move on. Time to go.



Thanks!

I'm not affected by any of the schemes and stuff that Rob has posted on, but from what I've seen I'd say his posts have been constructive, even professional, attacking his active contribution seems pretty daft to me.

Maybe you should bin your "Max" sockpuppet, all your others and the main acct you use as clearly you're just a troll.

[jbryce]

You have stated that your day job is taking more time so you can't post as much here anymore, and the "other issues" make if difficult for you spend time posting here.

So please keep to your word, and move on. Time to go.

Thanks!

His advice has been very useful, impartial and accurate.
What's your problem?

[turnover]

Harsh and unfair, considering the good information and reasoned analysis he has provided.

Agreed. The advice provided by Rob has been very helpful to a lot of people on the forums.

[dezze]

You have stated that your day job is taking more time so you can't post as much here anymore, and the "other issues" make if difficult for you spend time posting here.

So please keep to your word, and move on. Time to go.



Thanks!

Harsh and unfair, considering the good information and reasoned analysis he has provided.

[cojak]

Really?

Rob79 is replying to people PMing him.

He asked me first if it was ok to post this and I allowed him to.

If you have a problem with it, take it up with me.

[max]

Enough Rob

You have stated that your day job is taking more time so you can't post as much here anymore, and the "other issues" make if difficult for you spend time posting here.

So please keep to your word, and move on. Time to go.



Thanks!

[Rob79]

The above is the commonly held behavior pattern of groups. I've been asked by a few people recently what I think about groups coming together on various schemes. The following represents my thoughts and experience and will not necessarily accord with the actions of those groups I know already exist in this space and which (it seems to me) are doing a very decent job.

A disclaimer. In my day job, I do put together groups of investors who now have problems due to mis-selling of the initial product, compounded by HMRC chasing them for liabilities they never thought they had. This is a paid for service for our clients. The following is NOT an advertisement for such services and NOT an inducement to pay my firm a fee. My firm is looking to expand its business and the contractor sector is one (of many) areas we're looking at. I'll be honest and say that our core proposition is more suited to expanding pensions mis-selling and use of IHT "planning products". Currently we have NO groups of contractors we are acting for and NO active plans to create one. We DO have some initial requests for views and opinions which we are progressing and which MAY evolve further.

Groups of people who have undertaken the same or similar scheme are generally a very good idea so long as some goals and objectives can be agreed and adhered to. Those goals should be established at the outset but should not be rigid. As circumstances change, goals need to be reviewed and also change. You should not join a group if you think that it has a set of goals that once achieved allow you to end your contribution to the group.

These goals should preferably be written into an agreement so as to provide clarity. That agreement can include other issues such as costs, selection of advisers, meetings, administration, etc. DO not however expect that such a group, ring fenced by such an agreement, will be a democracy that will never operate outside the rules. It is impossible to capture all possible actions required in a document unless that document changes pretty much weekly. Equally it is impossible to put every change and interim action required to a vote. In practice the more active individuals (elected or otherwise) will drive the group and unless you are prepared to be one such, you have to accept that fact.

Groups formed to bring legal actions or contest (in this case) HMRC will have a range of opinions within its membership. I have found that these divide roughly into three. There is a group that just wants some support (emotional/practical) but which ultimately wants to get things agreed, pay their dues, recover what they can with the minimum of fuss and move on with their lives. There is a group that for reasons as individual as its members, will contest EVERYTHING sometimes to an unreasonable degree. I estimate that most groups have around 10% of their population in each of these camps.

The majority of members will be looking for a balanced position in terms of recovery of lost fees/income and payment of (tax) liabilities. Whilst there will be differences of opinion as to where that balance is, it is usually the case that most will accept a validly reasoned proposition. Some of this group will leak towards the above two for a number of reasons, especially towards the end of the process.

Groups bring mutual support, cost sharing, knowledge sharing, negotiating power and if properly led and organized will get close to achieving most of its goals.

Groups also bring compromise, potential additional disputes, personality clashes and if poorly led or organized, an inability to reach most of its goals.

Accept that most will be led by those who shout loudest. If that is an issue, don't join.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.