Umbrella Company offering 87% return

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

There would be less than no benefit. There would be a huge and expensive problem. But of course we are just theorising as to what it might be.

If an unauthorised pension payment is made it attracts a tax rate of 55%. Essentially if anything come out of the pension before the age of 55 then it is likely to get scrutinised by HMRC due to the reporting requirements. Which of course trustees will follow. I suspect it may also cause issues for whoever made the contribution, if it is so transparent there could easily be a subsequent argument as to whether it was deductible for CT purpose to the payer.

I would be interested to know the actual details of what they propose; but I doubt that will happen.

Another issue of course is that any failure for tax planning purpose doesn't change what happened, or the treatment of the funds. It just changes the taxation of it, so it is perfectly possible to end up considerably worse off even before penalties.

I think you are absolutely right ASB and I would also like to know the details of the scheme but we know that's not going to happen It just never ceases to amaze me how many variants of the 'loan' scheme are being devised

[jgoldsmithuk]

Hi

Ok new to this site and contracting.. Thinking I may have made a bad choice of my umbrella company reading some of the posts on this forum..

A question though. What is a DOTAS number???

J

[cojak]

Hi

Ok new to this site and contracting.. Thinking I may have made a bad choice of my umbrella company reading some of the posts on this forum..

A question though. What is a DOTAS number???

J

Oh Dear...

See here - http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_029990

And here http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...take-home.html

[cojak]

Oh, and just to let people on here know - I permabanned the OP because he proved to be a dead-eyed, snake-oil scheme salesman.

I ban anyone I think is a dead-eyed, snake-oil scheme salesman.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Oh, and just to let people on here know - I permabanned the OP because he proved to be a dead-eyed, snake-oil scheme salesman.

I ban anyone I think is a dead-eyed, snake-oil scheme salesman.

And that is why we all hold you in such high esteem Cojak

[JMGB]

Robert venables QC IQ Contracts / Darwin

I seem to remember that Robert Venables name was attached to another, similar, scheme and that he has actually retired. The tax implications are that, potentially, you will required to pay back any tax advantage that you may have received, plus interest, plus penalties.

The company you refer to was set up less than 6 months ago. The scheme is DOTAS registered which means you can expect to receive contact from HMRC within the next few months requesting payment

Hi all, allow me to recommend a new offshore umbrella offering 110% returns ......haha. Seriously though, I have been looking into Robert Venables QC to ensure, A: He exists B: Certain entities claiming to have his advice did indeed have it - or else I'd sue them for breach of contract / trading standards / advertising / and Tort law. Anyway, here is a published paper of his which may be of use / interest if Cojak thinks OK http://www.taxchambers.com/sites/def...sultations.pdf

Mod note: Oh Dear - no I don't and it's earned you a permaban.

2nd Mod note - Ah. You were joking. I'll get admin to unban you, but don't try that again while I'm trying to get things done IRL...

[stek]

Just got one from Emma at Contractor Pay, 90%, tempted to play along and waste their time......

Domain name:
contractor-pay.co.uk

Registrant:
iain nicholson

Registrant type:
Unknown

Registrant's address:
52 Mount Road
Canterbury
Kent
CT1 1YF
United Kingdom

[stek]

Just got one from Emma at Contractor Pay, 90%, tempted to play along and waste their time......

Domain name:
contractor-pay.co.uk

Registrant:
iain nicholson

Registrant type:
Unknown

Registrant's address:
52 Mount Road
Canterbury
Kent
CT1 1YF
United Kingdom

You can be assured that our market-leading planning strategies are fully supported by the written Opinion of Senior Tax Counsel and comply with all UK Taxes Acts legislation (this can be verified by your independent professional advisers) and are specially designed to avoid IR35. Our ethos is to ensure full legal compliance.

Mr Venables again I wonder?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

If you do feel the need to play along Stek I'd be interested to see the mechanics of the scheme

[Rob79]

Mr Venables is indeed an experienced QC in the field of taxation. He has held various significant posts in the Tax Bar and related organisations.

There are quite a few other QC's specialising in tax and a simple Google search would uncover most of them.

Barristers though offer an "opinion". It is not a guarantee that a particular arrangement will work or is even legal. It's just their view of those arrangements.

You'd like to think that their view is informed by years of experience, legal training and with an eye to developments in the future. In the vast majority of instances I suspect that this is the case.

The normal process for promoters using QC's is for a set of "Instructions" to be prepared that describe the arrangements and which then analyse the tax position and ask questions in areas of uncertainty. Those Instructions are usually prepared by lawyers although they don't have to be following changes in rules to allow direct access a few years ago. You still need some professional qualifications (accounting, tax, insurance) etc but most promoters would have such people on their staff.

The QC answers the questions he's given in the context of the Instructions. The answers are collected into a written form which if it follows a meeting are usually called "Notes of Conference". The QC is then asked to sign off such Notes. If he does so, they become "Settled Notes of Conference".

So far, so good.

How much of those Notes a promoter shares with his potential clients is up to him. Showing the entire Note will jeopardise the Privilege that the Notes have, i.e. they are confidential and HMRC cannot have them. Usually therefore selected parts are disclosed in public materials. Sometimes the whole Note is available to read but not be copied or taken away.

From this it's easy to see that a statement that "this is QC approved" may not be that valuable. You don't know what the QC has been asked; did the arrangement happen exactly as described; have the QC's answers been presented in context; how many QC's were visited before the right answer was derived; were matters discussed in conference, such as risk, that never made it to the Note; etc.

Opinion shopping is common. Some QC's are known to have more "assertive" views on particular areas of taxation than others.

Also don't forget that a QC who gives an opinion may often be approached to defend the arrangements in Court if required.

So QC's are almost always honest professional people with an interest in being right (helps them gain business) but who are protected by giving an "opinion" which is capable of being corrupted once it leaves them.

That is not to say that promoters always do this, but that the system is capable of being manipulated.