| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 11:30 - Sep 2 with 1350 views | saint901 |
This is my work area and I've helped a lot of people, including footballers, who were involved in some of these schemes.
I'll explain more later but suffice to say that the majority of them are in a bind because they listened to the wrong people. |  | |  |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 11:33 - Sep 2 with 1349 views | Heisenberg |
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them ? |  |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 11:43 - Sep 2 with 1339 views | Ifonly |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 11:30 - Sep 2 by saint901 |
This is my work area and I've helped a lot of people, including footballers, who were involved in some of these schemes.
I'll explain more later but suffice to say that the majority of them are in a bind because they listened to the wrong people. |
The people they listened to were definitely wrong'uns. It sounds as though some of this wrongdoing should be punished (e.g. not declaring conflicts of interest) but I imagine that's difficult.
But it seems to me that the spotlight should also be shone on another group of people - the agents. They're supposed to be "managing" the affairs of these players and they get very well paid for doing it. I imagine they claim that they are only managing income, not investments, but I would argue that in their position they have a duty of care to the players. | | | |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:05 - Sep 2 with 1269 views | yateleysaint |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 11:33 - Sep 2 by Heisenberg |
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them ? |
I’d happily contribute to a whipround for Rod Wallace, the first black man I ever fell in (platonic, purely football-related) love with.
I still maintain that if we’d have been able to keep that 89/90 team together for just a couple more years we’d have won the league. |  |
| You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into. |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:49 - Sep 2 with 1219 views | Joiedevivre |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:05 - Sep 2 by yateleysaint |
I’d happily contribute to a whipround for Rod Wallace, the first black man I ever fell in (platonic, purely football-related) love with.
I still maintain that if we’d have been able to keep that 89/90 team together for just a couple more years we’d have won the league. |
We need a thread on Saints ‘what ifs.’
Our entire history is situated within a bubble of what ifs. |  | | |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:50 - Sep 2 with 1215 views | PatfromPoole |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:05 - Sep 2 by yateleysaint |
I’d happily contribute to a whipround for Rod Wallace, the first black man I ever fell in (platonic, purely football-related) love with.
I still maintain that if we’d have been able to keep that 89/90 team together for just a couple more years we’d have won the league. |
I wouldn't.
He presumably left Saints for money. |  |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:54 - Sep 2 with 1207 views | Butty101 |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:50 - Sep 2 by PatfromPoole |
I wouldn't.
He presumably left Saints for money. |
Danny Wallace absolutely.
Rod couldnt get away quick enough |  |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 17:13 - Sep 2 with 1098 views | saint901 |
The schemes used here really began with Labour's Blair and Brown who introduced tax relief for investment in British films. The budget for this relief was initially around £40m.
It worked. Many films were made here and UK studios, pre and post production and other services boomed. And Blair/Brown got to rub shoulders with Hollywood glitterati.
In the late 1990's along came outfits like Kingsbridge, Ingenious, Matrix, etc. They commoditised the tax relief. They realised that if you put in 20p/£, borrowed 80p/£ you got tax relief on £1 which at that time was worth £0.40 - or twice your investment. The 80p was paid back by the film studio who got 20p of cash.
Greedy? Yes - but who gained?
The studios = yes. The introducers = yes (30% commissions). The above firms = yes. The investors - yes, they doubled their money without worrying about the success of the film.
So who lost? British taxpayers. I would estimate that the tax relief claimed for these schemes is north of £10bn. The amount paid out and now irrecoverable is perhaps £3bn. The amount in dispute and being chased by HMRC perhaps £5bn. (Around £2bn was never paid out and claims have been abandoned).
Also losers are British studios and film workers. A different system of relief replaced these schemes but it's worth perhaps a quarter of what it was. Fewer films made in the UK since 2005 when HMRC changed the rules - see below - and as we have now seen even the big franchise "British" films like Bond are going overseas.
In 2005 HMRC "changed the interpretation" of the rules. They claimed that all relief claimed to then and not paid out was now subject to that new interpretation. The new rule basically stopped all claims and we saw a dozen or more cases go to Tribunal. They are still going some two decades later. To those of us used to tax law being tax law and changed only when Parliament said so, suddenly be subject a change in policy by HMRC (unelected)- unannounced - was a shock.
The introducers and facilitators and agencies such as those above, did one of two things.
Either they closed their doors immediately and the owners disappeared with millions in fees. Or they told investors (the players) that this was "all routine", "will be challenged", "don't worry your money is safe". Some of these firms are still saying that - Ingenious in particular.
All the time HMRC was tightening the noose and putting these firms AND THE INVESTORS on notice that they wanted the tax (which in many cases HMRC had actually paid in cash and now wanted back) and interest and probably penalties.
I have seen HMRC claim that somebody who put up £50k of cash in 2001 now owes them, tax + interest + penalties, around £250k.
Can an ex player afford that sort of multiple? Probably not.
Should the player have seen this coming? Probably not as they were sheltered by agents who were lying to them and too busy to care or to be blunt just did not - and still do not - understand this process.
Should HMRC have been more honest and open and admitted that they were very late to the party? Absolutely.
So nobody comes out of this well.
I'm often asked who is to blame and the answer is everybody above.
Should we feel sorry for players? Well, if players had a decent education, some awareness that investments and tax relief can reduce or be denied, had avenues to better investments provided by clubs (who frankly were missing in this whole process which is shocking) , then we should not feel sorry.
If however none of the above was present (and it was not), are the players victims of a financial scam which in part at least was created by HMRC?
This is my day job and I've learned that making moral judgements is pointless. Some players were duped. Some knew what was going on. Each story is different. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 18:46 - Sep 2 with 1003 views | felly1 |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:54 - Sep 2 by Butty101 |
Danny Wallace absolutely.
Rod couldnt get away quick enough |
I always preferred Danny over Rod. | | | |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 19:08 - Sep 2 with 967 views | Block8 |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 17:13 - Sep 2 by saint901 |
The schemes used here really began with Labour's Blair and Brown who introduced tax relief for investment in British films. The budget for this relief was initially around £40m.
It worked. Many films were made here and UK studios, pre and post production and other services boomed. And Blair/Brown got to rub shoulders with Hollywood glitterati.
In the late 1990's along came outfits like Kingsbridge, Ingenious, Matrix, etc. They commoditised the tax relief. They realised that if you put in 20p/£, borrowed 80p/£ you got tax relief on £1 which at that time was worth £0.40 - or twice your investment. The 80p was paid back by the film studio who got 20p of cash.
Greedy? Yes - but who gained?
The studios = yes. The introducers = yes (30% commissions). The above firms = yes. The investors - yes, they doubled their money without worrying about the success of the film.
So who lost? British taxpayers. I would estimate that the tax relief claimed for these schemes is north of £10bn. The amount paid out and now irrecoverable is perhaps £3bn. The amount in dispute and being chased by HMRC perhaps £5bn. (Around £2bn was never paid out and claims have been abandoned).
Also losers are British studios and film workers. A different system of relief replaced these schemes but it's worth perhaps a quarter of what it was. Fewer films made in the UK since 2005 when HMRC changed the rules - see below - and as we have now seen even the big franchise "British" films like Bond are going overseas.
In 2005 HMRC "changed the interpretation" of the rules. They claimed that all relief claimed to then and not paid out was now subject to that new interpretation. The new rule basically stopped all claims and we saw a dozen or more cases go to Tribunal. They are still going some two decades later. To those of us used to tax law being tax law and changed only when Parliament said so, suddenly be subject a change in policy by HMRC (unelected)- unannounced - was a shock.
The introducers and facilitators and agencies such as those above, did one of two things.
Either they closed their doors immediately and the owners disappeared with millions in fees. Or they told investors (the players) that this was "all routine", "will be challenged", "don't worry your money is safe". Some of these firms are still saying that - Ingenious in particular.
All the time HMRC was tightening the noose and putting these firms AND THE INVESTORS on notice that they wanted the tax (which in many cases HMRC had actually paid in cash and now wanted back) and interest and probably penalties.
I have seen HMRC claim that somebody who put up £50k of cash in 2001 now owes them, tax + interest + penalties, around £250k.
Can an ex player afford that sort of multiple? Probably not.
Should the player have seen this coming? Probably not as they were sheltered by agents who were lying to them and too busy to care or to be blunt just did not - and still do not - understand this process.
Should HMRC have been more honest and open and admitted that they were very late to the party? Absolutely.
So nobody comes out of this well.
I'm often asked who is to blame and the answer is everybody above.
Should we feel sorry for players? Well, if players had a decent education, some awareness that investments and tax relief can reduce or be denied, had avenues to better investments provided by clubs (who frankly were missing in this whole process which is shocking) , then we should not feel sorry.
If however none of the above was present (and it was not), are the players victims of a financial scam which in part at least was created by HMRC?
This is my day job and I've learned that making moral judgements is pointless. Some players were duped. Some knew what was going on. Each story is different. |
I watched some of this on the BBC news, your post has made it a lot clearer. Thank you 👍 | | | |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 20:00 - Sep 2 with 930 views | mushinexile |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 11:33 - Sep 2 by Heisenberg |
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them ? |
No, of course not. Why should we have any sympathy for somebody who has had their life savings stolen from them? | |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 20:11 - Sep 2 with 915 views | DorsetIan |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 17:13 - Sep 2 by saint901 |
The schemes used here really began with Labour's Blair and Brown who introduced tax relief for investment in British films. The budget for this relief was initially around £40m.
It worked. Many films were made here and UK studios, pre and post production and other services boomed. And Blair/Brown got to rub shoulders with Hollywood glitterati.
In the late 1990's along came outfits like Kingsbridge, Ingenious, Matrix, etc. They commoditised the tax relief. They realised that if you put in 20p/£, borrowed 80p/£ you got tax relief on £1 which at that time was worth £0.40 - or twice your investment. The 80p was paid back by the film studio who got 20p of cash.
Greedy? Yes - but who gained?
The studios = yes. The introducers = yes (30% commissions). The above firms = yes. The investors - yes, they doubled their money without worrying about the success of the film.
So who lost? British taxpayers. I would estimate that the tax relief claimed for these schemes is north of £10bn. The amount paid out and now irrecoverable is perhaps £3bn. The amount in dispute and being chased by HMRC perhaps £5bn. (Around £2bn was never paid out and claims have been abandoned).
Also losers are British studios and film workers. A different system of relief replaced these schemes but it's worth perhaps a quarter of what it was. Fewer films made in the UK since 2005 when HMRC changed the rules - see below - and as we have now seen even the big franchise "British" films like Bond are going overseas.
In 2005 HMRC "changed the interpretation" of the rules. They claimed that all relief claimed to then and not paid out was now subject to that new interpretation. The new rule basically stopped all claims and we saw a dozen or more cases go to Tribunal. They are still going some two decades later. To those of us used to tax law being tax law and changed only when Parliament said so, suddenly be subject a change in policy by HMRC (unelected)- unannounced - was a shock.
The introducers and facilitators and agencies such as those above, did one of two things.
Either they closed their doors immediately and the owners disappeared with millions in fees. Or they told investors (the players) that this was "all routine", "will be challenged", "don't worry your money is safe". Some of these firms are still saying that - Ingenious in particular.
All the time HMRC was tightening the noose and putting these firms AND THE INVESTORS on notice that they wanted the tax (which in many cases HMRC had actually paid in cash and now wanted back) and interest and probably penalties.
I have seen HMRC claim that somebody who put up £50k of cash in 2001 now owes them, tax + interest + penalties, around £250k.
Can an ex player afford that sort of multiple? Probably not.
Should the player have seen this coming? Probably not as they were sheltered by agents who were lying to them and too busy to care or to be blunt just did not - and still do not - understand this process.
Should HMRC have been more honest and open and admitted that they were very late to the party? Absolutely.
So nobody comes out of this well.
I'm often asked who is to blame and the answer is everybody above.
Should we feel sorry for players? Well, if players had a decent education, some awareness that investments and tax relief can reduce or be denied, had avenues to better investments provided by clubs (who frankly were missing in this whole process which is shocking) , then we should not feel sorry.
If however none of the above was present (and it was not), are the players victims of a financial scam which in part at least was created by HMRC?
This is my day job and I've learned that making moral judgements is pointless. Some players were duped. Some knew what was going on. Each story is different. |
The tax QCs who signed these things off are particularly culpable, if you ask me. Their Opinions gave the schemes the air of repectability and robustness than enabled them to be sold. | |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 20:52 - Sep 2 with 886 views | Heisenberg |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 20:00 - Sep 2 by mushinexile |
No, of course not. Why should we have any sympathy for somebody who has had their life savings stolen from them? |
Why should people already earning a good living avoid paying tax. Taxes pay for our NHS our schools and our defences. I worked all my life earning a modest living and paid my taxes. Sorry but footballers earning more in a week than I earnt all year are hardly at the top of my concerns. | |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 22:45 - Sep 2 with 798 views | Butty101 |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 20:52 - Sep 2 by Heisenberg |
Why should people already earning a good living avoid paying tax. Taxes pay for our NHS our schools and our defences. I worked all my life earning a modest living and paid my taxes. Sorry but footballers earning more in a week than I earnt all year are hardly at the top of my concerns. |
Watched the program and they were trying to spin it as a scandal on par with the Post office one. Its a tough one to sell tbh. Its hard to feel sorry for some blokes who kicked a ball and earned millions over a 15 year career then retire. | |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 07:15 - Sep 3 with 694 views | saint22 |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 17:13 - Sep 2 by saint901 |
The schemes used here really began with Labour's Blair and Brown who introduced tax relief for investment in British films. The budget for this relief was initially around £40m.
It worked. Many films were made here and UK studios, pre and post production and other services boomed. And Blair/Brown got to rub shoulders with Hollywood glitterati.
In the late 1990's along came outfits like Kingsbridge, Ingenious, Matrix, etc. They commoditised the tax relief. They realised that if you put in 20p/£, borrowed 80p/£ you got tax relief on £1 which at that time was worth £0.40 - or twice your investment. The 80p was paid back by the film studio who got 20p of cash.
Greedy? Yes - but who gained?
The studios = yes. The introducers = yes (30% commissions). The above firms = yes. The investors - yes, they doubled their money without worrying about the success of the film.
So who lost? British taxpayers. I would estimate that the tax relief claimed for these schemes is north of £10bn. The amount paid out and now irrecoverable is perhaps £3bn. The amount in dispute and being chased by HMRC perhaps £5bn. (Around £2bn was never paid out and claims have been abandoned).
Also losers are British studios and film workers. A different system of relief replaced these schemes but it's worth perhaps a quarter of what it was. Fewer films made in the UK since 2005 when HMRC changed the rules - see below - and as we have now seen even the big franchise "British" films like Bond are going overseas.
In 2005 HMRC "changed the interpretation" of the rules. They claimed that all relief claimed to then and not paid out was now subject to that new interpretation. The new rule basically stopped all claims and we saw a dozen or more cases go to Tribunal. They are still going some two decades later. To those of us used to tax law being tax law and changed only when Parliament said so, suddenly be subject a change in policy by HMRC (unelected)- unannounced - was a shock.
The introducers and facilitators and agencies such as those above, did one of two things.
Either they closed their doors immediately and the owners disappeared with millions in fees. Or they told investors (the players) that this was "all routine", "will be challenged", "don't worry your money is safe". Some of these firms are still saying that - Ingenious in particular.
All the time HMRC was tightening the noose and putting these firms AND THE INVESTORS on notice that they wanted the tax (which in many cases HMRC had actually paid in cash and now wanted back) and interest and probably penalties.
I have seen HMRC claim that somebody who put up £50k of cash in 2001 now owes them, tax + interest + penalties, around £250k.
Can an ex player afford that sort of multiple? Probably not.
Should the player have seen this coming? Probably not as they were sheltered by agents who were lying to them and too busy to care or to be blunt just did not - and still do not - understand this process.
Should HMRC have been more honest and open and admitted that they were very late to the party? Absolutely.
So nobody comes out of this well.
I'm often asked who is to blame and the answer is everybody above.
Should we feel sorry for players? Well, if players had a decent education, some awareness that investments and tax relief can reduce or be denied, had avenues to better investments provided by clubs (who frankly were missing in this whole process which is shocking) , then we should not feel sorry.
If however none of the above was present (and it was not), are the players victims of a financial scam which in part at least was created by HMRC?
This is my day job and I've learned that making moral judgements is pointless. Some players were duped. Some knew what was going on. Each story is different. |
A very interesting astute breakdown thank you
It also totally screwed the UK film industry from which it has never really recovered | | | |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 07:24 - Sep 3 with 688 views | yateleysaint |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:54 - Sep 2 by Butty101 |
Danny Wallace absolutely.
Rod couldnt get away quick enough |
That was only because he was so rapid.
I saw him back at SMS a few years ago when he was doing some keepy ups for corporate. | |
| You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into. |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 07:25 - Sep 3 with 686 views | yateleysaint |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 13:50 - Sep 2 by PatfromPoole |
I wouldn't.
He presumably left Saints for money. |
And the glory of winning the league with Leeds…
Anyone who played in that 4-1 demolition of Liverpool has my undying respect. | |
| You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into. |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 08:13 - Sep 3 with 647 views | mushinexile |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 20:52 - Sep 2 by Heisenberg |
Why should people already earning a good living avoid paying tax. Taxes pay for our NHS our schools and our defences. I worked all my life earning a modest living and paid my taxes. Sorry but footballers earning more in a week than I earnt all year are hardly at the top of my concerns. |
Evasion is criminal. Avoidance, minimising your tax liablilty, is perfectly legal and sensible. It doesn't take away from the fact that those who were paid to entertain you had their life savings stolen and such callousness is not worthy of you. | |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 08:23 - Sep 3 with 638 views | Heisenberg |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 08:13 - Sep 3 by mushinexile |
Evasion is criminal. Avoidance, minimising your tax liablilty, is perfectly legal and sensible. It doesn't take away from the fact that those who were paid to entertain you had their life savings stolen and such callousness is not worthy of you. |
I know the difference between evasion and avoidance. I have my views on it but won’t bother here. Regarding the players. They are not children. They are responsible for their own decisions. I am merely saying that the likes of Danny Murphy Rio Ferdinand and others were or are very wealthy. The fact that they lost millions because they failed to carry out due diligence or trusted someone they shouldn’t have is not on a par with the post office scandal, the WASPI women and others. Callous or not but I have little or no sympathy for wealthy people using tax avoidance schemes to obtain even more wealth. Some might say greed got the better of them. | |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 09:43 - Sep 4 with 429 views | saint901 |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 20:11 - Sep 2 by DorsetIan |
The tax QCs who signed these things off are particularly culpable, if you ask me. Their Opinions gave the schemes the air of repectability and robustness than enabled them to be sold. |
An opinion from a QC/KC is exactly that - an opinion.
It's not a free ticket, not a guaranteed outcome, just one man's opinion.
It was well known that some QC's were essentially guns for hire. Given them the "right" question and you got the "right" answer.
I'll not name them here but a QC called Jolyon Maugham - founder of the Good Law Project - wrote an article called "The boys who won't say no" which criticised named barristers. That was over ten years ago.
https://taxjustice.net/2014/08/18/8194/
(Be careful as the Tax Justice Network is run by a purist who has some odd and unworkable ideas.)
A true story.
I surveyed a group of clients (some of them pro players) who used film schemes. Total population around 1,200. Had about 900 responses. Of those, less than 30 said that they had read the QC opinion. Of that 30, less than 5 had read the instructions to the QC that he answered in his opinion.
Why?
Because tax is complicated. Because they trusted somebody who was a professional. Because they were reckless with their time and money.
Not one of them got a second opinion. Some did ask the introducer for a second opinion. Those not put off by the costs and negative reaction of the introducer said that because the second opinion did not come out and say "stay away", they saw it as approval.
Not one of them asked HMRC about the scheme BEFORE using it. (I know the TV program said otherwise but having met with and spoken with the lawyer heading the V11, I can confidently say that they have not one shred of evidence that any such conversation with HMRC took place.)
I can also say that the V11 group has been very good at exploiting the fact that they are well known names to elicit a TV program in an attempt to garner some sympathy and to counter the often harsh rhetoric of HMRC. There are tens of thousands of less well known taxpayers who are in a very similar situation who have been fighting this for close on 20 years. Sadly to my certain knowledge at least half a dozen have committed suicide. | | | |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 09:59 - Sep 4 with 419 views | saint901 |
Some of the comments above about the moral/ethical judgements around doing something legal to avoid tax or illegal to evade tax are points we have addressed many times over the years.
One end of this spectrum says that the people we put in charge of spending our taxes (the Gov't) cannot be trusted for any number of reasons to spend it wisely or in ways that we consider are good for us, our family, our community and our country. In that priority. In order to limit the unwise spending we almost have a moral duty to reduce what we give them.
The other end of that spectrum says that we - the people - want to enjoy the benefits of a first world nation and have a moral duty to aid and assist those who often through no fault of their own cannot support themselves. Consequently we have to accept that those with more resources should contribute more to the tax pot.
Where you fit along that line is wholly subjective.
Our approach is to explain to clients that the Gov't could demand 100% of your earnings, gains, asset sale proceeds, etc. The tax legislation is there to protect taxpayers from that scenario. Where the tax law is missing, ambiguous or unclear it is better to assume that anything other than paying the maximum amount of tax will be seen as avoidance. This takes away the personal judgements as to fairness and moral stance.
It is however a very uncertain picture not helped by incompetence that is almost negligence at HMRC.
We advised on a transaction. Two brothers built a business and sold it for a lot of money (eight figures). One used a series of structures and paid around 10% of his share in tax. The other deliberately shaped his transaction to pay the maximum tax he could - around 35%. We submitted the calculations together. Both were agreed by HMRC without a whisper.
Who was "right"?
I don't know and it doesn't matter. | | | |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 11:24 - Sep 4 with 365 views | DorsetIan |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 09:43 - Sep 4 by saint901 |
An opinion from a QC/KC is exactly that - an opinion.
It's not a free ticket, not a guaranteed outcome, just one man's opinion.
It was well known that some QC's were essentially guns for hire. Given them the "right" question and you got the "right" answer.
I'll not name them here but a QC called Jolyon Maugham - founder of the Good Law Project - wrote an article called "The boys who won't say no" which criticised named barristers. That was over ten years ago.
https://taxjustice.net/2014/08/18/8194/
(Be careful as the Tax Justice Network is run by a purist who has some odd and unworkable ideas.)
A true story.
I surveyed a group of clients (some of them pro players) who used film schemes. Total population around 1,200. Had about 900 responses. Of those, less than 30 said that they had read the QC opinion. Of that 30, less than 5 had read the instructions to the QC that he answered in his opinion.
Why?
Because tax is complicated. Because they trusted somebody who was a professional. Because they were reckless with their time and money.
Not one of them got a second opinion. Some did ask the introducer for a second opinion. Those not put off by the costs and negative reaction of the introducer said that because the second opinion did not come out and say "stay away", they saw it as approval.
Not one of them asked HMRC about the scheme BEFORE using it. (I know the TV program said otherwise but having met with and spoken with the lawyer heading the V11, I can confidently say that they have not one shred of evidence that any such conversation with HMRC took place.)
I can also say that the V11 group has been very good at exploiting the fact that they are well known names to elicit a TV program in an attempt to garner some sympathy and to counter the often harsh rhetoric of HMRC. There are tens of thousands of less well known taxpayers who are in a very similar situation who have been fighting this for close on 20 years. Sadly to my certain knowledge at least half a dozen have committed suicide. |
There's no point in a lay person reading a QC's Opinion. They have to rely on their other advisers to tell them what it says and they also have to rely on their other advisers to be looking out for their best interests.
The game with tax schemes back then was that the QCs advised on the scheme and signed it off, with the usual caveats. The advisers closer to the client (who were also looking at big fees for selling the schemes) then reassured the client by simply saying that it had been signed off by a QC.
From the lay client's perspective, it all looked reasonable and it was their trusted advisers encouraging them. They were often misled, there's no doubt about that.
And there were some people out there who knew that they were getting involved in a racket but didn't care. Most, however, acted in good faith, but were sold pups. | |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 11:43 - Sep 4 with 353 views | Chesham_Saint |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 20:52 - Sep 2 by Heisenberg |
Why should people already earning a good living avoid paying tax. Taxes pay for our NHS our schools and our defences. I worked all my life earning a modest living and paid my taxes. Sorry but footballers earning more in a week than I earnt all year are hardly at the top of my concerns. |
So, people who had a career that paid them well but who lose most of it due to a scam are not deserving of sympathy, whereas people who may have had a more modestly rewarded career but are also scammed, do?
Interesting perspective. |  |
| |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 12:26 - Sep 4 with 339 views | jopreston |
Little known fact for you here, that is quite relevant I believe. It is NOT legal for a trust firm to advertise their services and products. I know this as I know a company who set up living trusts to avoid IHT etc. I wonder why the government have made it illegal? Can you think why? | | | |
| Tax Avoidance Schemes on 14:36 - Sep 4 with 288 views | saint901 |
What is a "trust firm" please?
I've been in this space a long time and never heard of such a thing.
When we advise clients to set up or form a trust, we have a firm of solicitors do the necessary deeds etc.
Come to that, I'm not sure what a "living trust" is either.
Trusts can be created by any person who is alive and sometimes, a trust can be established via the will of a deceased person. Trusts can also be set up by a company or other incorporated entity.
But what is a "living trust" please? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
