breeze

[Vallah]

The fees for counsel opinion are paid for at the beginning of the year and updated on an annual basis following changes of opinion. We discuss this fully with prospective customers. They can do their own research as to the standing of the QC and the strength of his opinion, and will supply it to their advisers if required. How much we pay them has never cropped up

1) We tell them of the risks, but we don't think it will fail.
2) We explain fully how the scheme works
3) We explain that there is the possibility for retrospective action, but that we don't believe that this is likely based on our counsel opinion and experience in the industry.
4) Yes

[prozak]

1) We tell them of the risks, but we don't think it will fail.
2) We explain fully how the scheme works
3) We explain that there is the possibility for retrospective action, but that we don't believe that this is likely based on our counsel opinion and experience in the industry.
4) Yes

1 - So you explain their total risk. I.e a minimum of 10% of their revenue worse off if it goes badly?
2. That is not the same as explaining the reason why your scheme is self-employed. Do you tell them why the scheme is self employed and explain the legislation that caught you all out?
3. Do you tell them why and what the avenue of retrospective action is? i.e a little loophole on the word employee?

1 more:

Do you explain that HMRC actively pursues these schemes and these are the sort of schemes that the Prime Minister himself has described as wrong?

[Old Greg]

Followers of Breeze will be pleased to see that they have just had their notice of striking-off action discontinued.

BREEZE WEALTH LTD. Free Companies House Webcheck from Company Check on BREEZE WEALTH LTD. Registered as 08036919

Always nice to get in the London Gazette, but this must be a positive move for the lads, mustn't it?

[dezze]

Followers of Breeze will be pleased to see that they have just had their notice of striking-off action discontinued.

BREEZE WEALTH LTD. Free Companies House Webcheck from Company Check on BREEZE WEALTH LTD. Registered as 08036919

Always nice to get in the London Gazette, but this must be a positive move for the lads, mustn't it?

I must be behind the times - weren't they posting here not long ago saying how good their scheme is (was) ? - I may be mistaken.

[Old Greg]

I must be behind the times - weren't they posting here not long ago saying how good their scheme is (was) ? - I may be mistaken.

Well they must be doing something right if they got their striking off action discontinued.

[Clare@InTouch]

Well they must be doing something right if they got their striking off action discontinued.

Unless it's simply HMRC refusing to allow the action to continue. All the DISS40 shows is that cause has been given to stop the striking off.

[Old Greg]

Unless it's simply HMRC refusing to allow the action to continue. All the DISS40 shows is that cause has been given to stop the striking off.

But they're still a good bet, aren't they, Clare?

[speling bee]

Please explain how you can promise a 'minimum of 84.5% take home pay for contractors earning over £50k per annum and what evidence can you provide that HMR&C have confirmed that your product is not a tax avoidance scheme. You have stated in several places on your website that this scheme is 'zero risk' as it is indemnified so can you confirm that Lloyds will reimburse any contractors using the scheme for any underpaid tax, penalties, interest and legal costs?

Sorry for the delay everyone, it's been a busy day..



Hi Lisa, our product utilises a discretionary trust as a part of the individual's financial strategy - a complex instrument which if used properly can create significant tax advantages. The way the trust deed has been drafted in this case allows for tax efficient payments to be made to beneficiaries in the form of commercial loans which can be rolled over upon maturity. Arrangements which have been tested twice in the courts, both times the trust payments have been scrutinised and found not to be liable for taxation. Since HMRC have accepted that arrangements "that promoters know to be known to HMRC" are not caught by its anti-avoidance hallmarks, and in light of the Dextra & Sempra litigation amongst other factors, it follows that our product is not a tax avoidance scheme, a fact that has been confirmed in writing from HMRC. Our Lloyd's insurance covers a full reimbursement of fees in the highly unlikely event that the advice we have received be wrong - in complete contradiction of the existing case law - leaving our clients with 100% of their money and the tax bill they would have had, had they not used the arrangements. HMRC would not be able to charge penalties as there is full disclosure of the trust contributions as they are made.

Thanks to centurian for pointing out in this thread: http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...insurance.html

Surely we have seen the adverts claiming that the 80% guaranteed take home is insurance backed, often Lloyds backed, so you cannot possibly lose. The recent one involving Gary Barlow was insurance backed, so he should be fine, right?

Icebreaker threatens to sue Deloitte | AccountingWEB

Taylor adds: "Based on correspondence from the insurers solicitors, it is clear that the insurer believes it was not provided with the relevant information. The insurer has voided the scheme and agreed to repay the premiums.
Given that most avoidance schemes at this end of the scale are on such a knife-edge legal wise, presumably insurers can pull this stunt whenever a scheme gets defeated.

So the insurance is like an umbrella which only works when the sun is shining.

What does this mean for our friends from Breeze?

[cojak]

We can guess, can't we boys and girls?

Their customers dried up after the brown envelopes started landing on the door and the retro APNs were the final nail in the coffin.

(Is it too early to tune the uke for dancing on the grave?)

[centurian]

Thanks to centurian for pointing out in this thread: http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...insurance.html

Cheers - it was that insurance I had in mind when I started the thread - even though I couldn't recall who the scheme promoter was.

And their insurance was even worse - it was insurance for their fees only - not for the tax bill. The "zero risk" they talk about - is zero risk of being no worse off than paying the full whack of tax - and that assumes the insurers pay out, which as we have seen, is far from certain.

Unfortunately they probably managed to draw in a few suckers before they upped-sticks