breeze

[cojak]

Despite all of this backwards and forwards and with some really rather worrying statements being made about Breeze, the people involved and previous schemes (scams?), the Breeze adverts are still quite prominent on this site! Surely CUK should get involved and stop the adds until some due diligence has been performed?

No, CUK should not get involved.

CUK is not a financial advice website, nor is it your Mum.

Due diligence is for those who are considering taking the jump, if they are too idle to do it for themselves then Caveat Emptor.

Those banners are ads, alerting those interested to products and services. Nothing more, nothing less.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

I take your point Geoff and I do admire Phil/Mark for discussing this on a public forum but you have to appreciate that other schemes he was involved with cost contractors money - they are bound to want more information, are bound to be cynical and are probably (justifiably or otherwise) annoyed that another scheme, similar to the one they were stung by, is blatantly advertising 85% take home by using loans in one form or another and promising that any contractor using them would be taking no risks whatsoever. I would imagine the BN66 guys would feel the same way if Montpelier put out a shiny new scheme with the same boast. From my point of view 'guarantees' and 'no risk' tend to aggravate me because there really is no such thing when you are dealing with HMR&C and other people's cash as the BN66 fiasco has proven and as it has happened once there is a precedent and could therefore happen again. I have no doubt that a good tax QC could sucessfully argue the legal validity of all schemes on offer but this only has merit if they win at a tax tribunal and even if they do the person they're defending (contractor or company operator) will be unable to claim back any costs which makes it a lose lose situation IMHO

You know my thoughts on providers glossing over the risks Lisa but personal attacks are a bit different and I personally think that the accusers should show their hand or keep quiet.If there are people who know the background to this then lets hear it and be prepared to announce who you are and then stand by your statements. All companies have employees and overheads to pay and it is very easy for people to hide behind a keyboard implying that they are suspect often without a shred of evidence to back it up.

I have no idea who the Breeze guys are by the way and have never met them. I know nothing about their product (beyond the theory behind it) or their background but they have been upfront enough to come on here and deal with the inevitable fallout, others who are not prepared to tell us who they are continue making insinuations.

Like I said, if you guys know something lets hear it.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

I take your point Geoff and I do admire Phil/Mark for discussing this on a public forum but you have to appreciate that other schemes he was involved with cost contractors money - they are bound to want more information, are bound to be cynical and are probably (justifiably or otherwise) annoyed that another scheme, similar to the one they were stung by, is blatantly advertising 85% take home by using loans in one form or another and promising that any contractor using them would be taking no risks whatsoever. I would imagine the BN66 guys would feel the same way if Montpelier put out a shiny new scheme with the same boast. From my point of view 'guarantees' and 'no risk' tend to aggravate me because there really is no such thing when you are dealing with HMR&C and other people's cash as the BN66 fiasco has proven and as it has happened once there is a precedent and could therefore happen again. I have no doubt that a good tax QC could sucessfully argue the legal validity of all schemes on offer but this only has merit if they win at a tax tribunal and even if they do the person they're defending (contractor or company operator) will be unable to claim back any costs which makes it a lose lose situation IMHO

I meant to say, aren't all those contractors so lucky they have you looking out for their interests so selflessly.

[speling bee]

There are lots if unanswered questions from their own marketing

Where does the 20 years' experience come from? It doesn't appear to be the directors.

Is it zero risk or minimal risk? Both are stated but they cannot both be true.

Is it admirable that they post here? Not sure yet.

[MarillionFan]

There are lots if unanswered questions from their own marketing

Where does the 20 years' experience come from? It doesn't appear to be the directors.

Is it zero risk or minimal risk? Both are stated but they cannot both be true.

Is it admirable that they post here? Not sure yet.

Experience tends to come from the accumulative work experience of the employees. Think I saw some marketing gumpf from a company a while back stating some ridiculous 100 years experience in some IT product. Nonsense really.

I agree with Geoff here, as was my point. JGrinder has had every question answered, been offered face to fAce meetings, has been petulant about 'popping in' and has muddied the waters on the thread by insinuating an issue about employees. I think he's been answered unless he has more to add.

What I like about this thread is, that in the 12+ years ive been on CUK I'm not sure I've seen such a comprehensive argument / provision of information put across by a company for their services in one of the forums.

To me, risk is down to the individual. Nothing is 'risk free' and the premise that you can cover the possibility of a retrospective tax bill on this scheme down to insurance and having to pay the tax you would have had to in the first place, is for me the equivalent of stating that every contract you have is outside IR35 or deciding not to declare any tax returns at all and keeping the lot! All options have risk.

I'll be sticking to Ltd thanks. But i do applaude the Breeze boys sales pitch.

[speling bee]

Experience tends to come from the accumulative work experience of the employees. Think I saw some marketing gumpf from a company a while back stating some ridiculous 100 years experience in some IT product. Nonsense really.

I agree with Geoff here, as was my point. JGrinder has had every question answered, been offered face to fAce meetings, has been petulant about 'popping in' and has muddied the waters on the thread by insinuating an issue about employees. I think he's been answered unless he has more to add.

What I like about this thread is, that in the 12+ years ive been on CUK I'm not sure I've seen such a comprehensive argument / provision of information put across by a company for their services in one of the forums.

To me, risk is down to the individual. Nothing is 'risk free' and the premise that you can cover the possibility of a retrospective tax bill on this scheme down to insurance and having to pay the tax you would have had to in the first place, is for me the equivalent of stating that every contract you have is outside IR35 or deciding not to declare any tax returns at all and keeping the lot! All options have risk.

I'll be sticking to Ltd thanks. But i do applaude the Breeze boys sales pitch.

So is it zero risk or not? Not, you say. Are they liars or not when they say zero risk? Is this a great opportunity to maximise profits or another disaster waiting to happen?

I agree they play a good game, but that's not a great thing if people are going to end up vomiting blood while they wait for their bankruptcy court hearing.

What have we got so far excepta come of Sunday Solutions sales team members and a few lines from a QC?

[SueEllen]

To me, risk is down to the individual. Nothing is 'risk free' and the premise that you can cover the possibility of a retrospective tax bill on this scheme down to insurance and having to pay the tax you would have had to in the first place, is for me the equivalent of stating that every contract you have is outside IR35 or deciding not to declare any tax returns at all and keeping the lot! All options have risk.

The marketing material doesn't say that though.

Unfortunately it implies to the naive that HMRC will never change the law retrospectively when they find there isn't a law to cover the current loophole.

I'll be sticking to Ltd thanks. But i do applaude the Breeze boys sales pitch.

So will I, and the sales pitch only works on the naive.

[cojak]

You can take it or leave it, no one is forcing you.

I'll leave it, but there are grown ups* out there who may think the risk is worth it.

*and there's no law against being naive, greedy or timid..

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I meant to say, aren't all those contractors so lucky they have you looking out for their interests so selflessly.

I can't imagine most of them will take a blind bit of notice Geoff

[centurian]

I'll be sticking to Ltd thanks.

+1

Personally I think anyone who goes into this scheme must be stark raving bonkers.

However, given their highly effective PR charm/offensive, I suspect they will have a queue of eager mugs knocking on the door.