Reply to: CLSO2 or Join Big Group?

[Finalwhistle]

....

Agreed. CLSO2 is the only risk-free option.

CLSO is not risk free as it involves paying what you might not owe. The only thing risk free about it is that you pay up to 20 years of bull sh1t illegal unprecedented taxation as a result of severe bullying tactics. I'm happy to settle everything I owe from 2016 (when the law was changed...as a middle ground they could even go back 4 years from 2016, which is in line with other tax avoidance investigations)... Why is it that this particular tax avoidance arrangement goes back 20 years?? even criminals accused of tax evasion only go back 6 years. FIGHT THIS BS AND JOIN THE LCAG IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY....THE WHEELS ARE IN MOTION.

This is a human rights issue as well as a tax issue and should be fought on both fronts.

[LOL17]

It is a tough one. Like another poster, should I settle then CLS02 will hurt but it is doable if HMRC give me time. On the other hand I do wonder if it's worth just one more roll of the dice with Big Group. I've spoken with both Phil and Graham so now I'm weighing up my options.

I spoke with an old colleague earlier who's used AML and then Smart Pay for 10 years. He's in the hole for about £500k so he's ****ed whatever he does. Other colleagues are flitting between anger and denial.

[DontSettle]

Thanks for responses all. As with everything it's never just black and white. I'll still consider which route to take as I'm still 50 /50. Would love to fight back as I do see the case for it but that fear of what may come if it goes against it. I know others who simply can't do the CLS02 as it will ruin them and have to fight even though they would like to end it

It really is a tough call as it is push by HRMC but seeing all these footballers in the papers now means it's going to be messy/interesting outcome.

I will probably do as most others have and register interest at least and discuss further.

Registering your interest would be catastrophic as you are admitting you are a tax avoider.
Do not trust HMRC it is maxtaxation all the way. They will be back for more like those with the first CLSO are finding.
They will shame you online see the STAR policy.
Footballers have been in the papers for years with tax avoidance, you will be next so fight the loan charge when the opportunity arises.

[QCApproved]

strength in numbers and through organisation - BG membership offers a lot regardless

[Hydro]

Thanks for responses all. As with everything it's never just black and white. I'll still consider which route to take as I'm still 50 /50. Would love to fight back as I do see the case for it but that fear of what may come if it goes against it. I know others who simply can't do the CLS02 as it will ruin them and have to fight even though they would like to end it

It really is a tough call as it is push by HRMC but seeing all these footballers in the papers now means it's going to be messy/interesting outcome.

I will probably do as most others have and register interest at least and discuss further.

[webberg]

Thank you Phil.

Obviously I cannot comment on the advantages and disadvantages of Big Group as I would be conflicted.

I do however think that the comparison is not as simple as CLSO 2 v the BG Resolution.

Between these there are other options that are dependent upon your circumstances.

You should explore them with a competent adviser.

[phil@pmtc]

Sorry - I’ve just realised this is a thread about big group. As an advisor who is separate to that I shouldn’t comment in here.
Therefore In interest of fairness I should state that BG is run by WTT and Graham (Webber) who is both a very reputable advisor and extremely experienced (not calling you old Graham, I promise!) and from my dealings with him a decent person.
I have no opinion whatsoever to share on whether people should take clso2 or BG.

[phil@pmtc]

HMRC have no faith in the LC, they would have agreed to repayment of CLSO2 payments in the eventuality the LC is proven not to apply.
The idea is to push scheme users to pay up voluntarily and admit being a tax avoider. Probably your details will be listed online at some point or details passed to the media like celebrities and footballers get now.
Once someone has admitted they are sitting ducks for further taxation by HMRC too.
Can anyone really trust HMRC considering the past 15 years?
Pay the CLSO2 and HMRC will bleed you dry.
That is the only certainty.

I don’t often speak up for HMRC (quite the opposite in fact as it’s quite easy to see from past posts etc) but tbf there is literally zero chance people will have their details passed to the media by HMRC due to settling.

[DontSettle]

HMRC have no faith in the LC, they would have agreed to repayment of CLSO2 payments in the eventuality the LC is proven not to apply.
The idea is to push scheme users to pay up voluntarily and admit being a tax avoider. Probably your details will be listed online at some point or details passed to the media like celebrities and footballers get now.
Once someone has admitted they are sitting ducks for further taxation by HMRC too.
Can anyone really trust HMRC considering the past 15 years?
Pay the CLSO2 and HMRC will bleed you dry.
That is the only certainty.

[ConfusedEasily]

Some can afford to risk a gamble,
Some cannot,
Some have no choice but to gamble as they are screwed either way.

Most of it has nothing to do with having balls, and to have any faith in the judiciary is pure fantasy IMO.

I'm pursuing BG, mainly because I can afford to and because my 'due diligence' suggests it has a chance. If nothing else, it'll give HMRC a bit of a kicking.

[me206et]

To a large extent, HMRC has just beaten us into submission. They don't quite have the law on their side, but they have contractors re-mortgaging, selling homes and fleeing the country. By the time anything gets to court such a large proportion of contractors will have stumped up that even if HMRC lose they can just shrug their shoulders and move on. A loss probably won't even see HMG legislating another LCv2.0 to try and catch the dregs. What would be the point?

So, if you have balls, patience and some faith in the judiciary then BG is definitely an option. Speak to Grahan or Rhys at BG - they're not salesmen and do actually give a ****. They are running a business, they do believe in their strategy and it has legal legs. It's probably easier money doing CLSO2 so they aren't pursuing the easier path.

For CLSO2, speak to phil.

But CLSO2 is final. No subsequent court ruling will allow you to get your cash back. It's gone.

For me, I'm hedging it. I've done enough due diligence to know that the BG strategy is tenable, but I will register for CLSO2 because the mental anguish this has caused me will probably see me fold.

Some can afford to risk a gamble,
Some cannot,
Some have no choice but to gamble as they are screwed either way.

Most of it has nothing to do with having balls, and to have any faith in the judiciary is pure fantasy IMO.

[jbryce]

To a large extent, HMRC has just beaten us into submission. They don't quite have the law on their side, but they have contractors re-mortgaging, selling homes and fleeing the country. By the time anything gets to court such a large proportion of contractors will have stumped up that even if HMRC lose they can just shrug their shoulders and move on. A loss probably won't even see HMG legislating another LCv2.0 to try and catch the dregs. What would be the point?

So, if you have balls, patience and some faith in the judiciary then BG is definitely an option. Speak to Grahan or Rhys at BG - they're not salesmen and do actually give a ****. They are running a business, they do believe in their strategy and it has legal legs. It's probably easier money doing CLSO2 so they aren't pursuing the easier path.

For CLSO2, speak to phil.

But CLSO2 is final. No subsequent court ruling will allow you to get your cash back. It's gone.

For me, I'm hedging it. I've done enough due diligence to know that the BG strategy is tenable, but I will register for CLSO2 because the mental anguish this has caused me will probably see me fold.

[Loan Ranger]

Remember that CLSO2 could require you to voluntarily pay up for tax you do not need to pay.You will never ever get the voluntary payment back under any circumstances.

Unfortunately, HMRC have engineered it so it's a choice between rock and a hard place. If you don't settle, you'll get hit by LC19.

[Loan Ranger]

I'd be inclined to go one further and say that CLSO2 is better even if the numbers against LC are very similar. CLSO2 draws a line on the issue (or at least you can aim to get that in writing from HMRC) while LC leaves things open for further review by HMRC in the future.

The pension point is important but difficult to achieve in practice and might not save as much as one thinks. It is a 30% tax saving for me, which is nice, but necessitates an 80% increase in cash to be able to fund the pension + pay the tax.

Agreed. CLSO2 is the only risk-free option.

[Kais]

I'd be inclined to go one further and say that CLSO2 is better even if the numbers against LC are very similar. CLSO2 draws a line on the issue (or at least you can aim to get that in writing from HMRC) while LC leaves things open for further review by HMRC in the future.

The pension point is important but difficult to achieve in practice and might not save as much as one thinks. It is a 30% tax saving for me, which is nice, but necessitates an 80% increase in cash to be able to fund the pension + pay the tax.

I'm inclined to agree and am most likely going to settle to draw a line under the whole thing.

Leaving loans outstanding exposes us to the risk of a future initiative. This doesn't need to be another loan charge but any as yet unknown creation. This is also more likely if HMRC/Parliament feel that too many have found creative way to circumvent the full intended tax.

Doing something legal at the time (but undeniably dubious) caused this issue in the first place, not to learn from this and attempt another creative solution is...

My thinking above is based on an uncomfortable but not painful amount to settle, others will fall at different places along a spectrum.