PDA

View Full Version : Lambard Wealth (and other new schemes) - Any opinions?



TheTaxManCometh
4th December 2014, 12:32
Hi all,

New to this site as a contributor (closet reader for a while) and had a query some of you seasoned clever types may be able to answer.

Been contracting for a while doing the usual low salary/dividends option, maximising things as much as possible with my wife who doesn't have a separate job.

I was introduced to an onshore tax scheme by a friend for a company called Lambard Wealth.

Their website and their FAQs are here - w ww.l-wealth.com/faqs - Lambard Wealth » FAQ’s (Sorry Admin if links are not allowed) and they state "Our strategies do not utilise Company Loans". HOWEVER, after speaking to one of their guys, it turns out they DO utilise company loans, which has already set some pre-alarm warnings going.

Not completely dismissing it but was hoping some of the more experienced people here with these schemes may be able to either spot glaring warning signs I'm missing or verify if this is an innovative product / old hat been done a million times elsewhere.

Thanks in advance!
M

cojak
4th December 2014, 13:11
Just to say, the OP placed the thread here - not me! :rollin:

But I will use this post to hang all other related HMRC brown envelope posts...

Read this post:

(Umbrella) companies - check them out BEFORE things go wrong! (http://forums.contractoruk.com/umbrella-companies/98204-umbrella-companies-checking-them-out-before-things-go-wrong.html)


The First Company Law Amendment Directive came in on 1 January 2007, and companies are required to put the following information on both their website and business emails:

the company registration number
place of registration (such as England and Wales)
registered office address.

In addition, the website also needs to include:

The company name, postal address and company email address
The name of any trade bodies or professional associations that the business is part of, including membership or registration details.
The company VAT number, even if the website is not being used for e-commerce transactions.
Any prices on the website must be clear and unambiguous.



You need to be able to trust a company. If there are no matches to the searches below, the company is breaking the law. Do you want to do business with such a company?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=registered+office+site%3Al-wealth.com - registered office site:l-wealth.com

and

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=VAT+site%3Al-wealth.com - VAT site:l-wealth.com


So decide yourself, because I’m afraid that we aren’t going to tell you.

TheTaxManCometh
4th December 2014, 13:47
Just to say, the OP placed the thread here - not me! :rollin:

But I will use this post to hang all other related HMRC brown envelope posts...

Read this post:

(Umbrella) companies - check them out BEFORE things go wrong! (http://forums.contractoruk.com/umbrella-companies/98204-umbrella-companies-checking-them-out-before-things-go-wrong.html)



You need to be able to trust a company. If there are no matches to the searches below, the company is breaking the law. Do you want to do business with such a company?

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=registered+office+site%3Al-wealth.com) - registered office site:l-wealth.com

and

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=VAT+site%3Al-wealth.com) - VAT site:l-wealth.com


So decide yourself, because I’m afraid that we aren’t going to tell you.

Thanks Cojak - this was the sanity check I was after.

Batcher
4th December 2014, 14:21
I think the fact it is called a 'scheme' is a dead giveaway. :smokin

cojak
8th December 2014, 07:48
I've amended the thread title so that I can push all new posts like this into this thread rather than just link to it...

TykeMerc
8th December 2014, 10:46
Not completely dismissing it but was hoping some of the more experienced people here with these schemes may be able to either spot glaring warning signs I'm missing or verify if this is an innovative product / old hat been done a million times elsewhere.



I think you will find that the generally accepted view of these schemes, no matter how new, innovative, clever or even re-cycling old stuff is that they're pure poison.

HMRC is directly attacking any and all schemes it can and unless you've a taste for protracted investigations, possible fines and penalties and being pursued by the tax man for years then you're nuts to consider using one.

jbryce
8th December 2014, 11:27
I think you will find that the generally accepted view of these schemes, no matter how new, innovative, clever or even re-cycling old stuff is that they're pure poison.

HMRC is directly attacking any and all schemes it can and unless you've a taste for protracted investigations, possible fines and penalties and being pursued by the tax man for years then you're nuts to consider using one.

It's just not worth it. HMRC have their blood up and are caning EBTs and anything that could be tagged as avoidance at the moment. If they are investigating 80% of these schemes then that only gives you a 1 in 5 chance of avoiding the pain and hassle.

It's life changing.

Don't do it. It's insane.

StrengthInNumbers
8th December 2014, 18:15
If you have to use then choose a one which is completely underground - not that I would touch it with a barge pole but being open with HMRC does not help. If anything it punishes.

Kess
18th March 2015, 17:44
I was just cold-called by some joker at Lambard Wealth. For entertainment I told him to send me details of their scheme (which is a "Corporate Tax Planning Strategy that has been used by Corporate Entities and High Net Worth Individuals for over 14 years" and is, of course, completely legal and OK with HMRC :laugh).

It turns out to be the usual scheme involving transferring your company profits into a Trust which then "loans" you the money back via a rolling tax-free commercial loan that never has to be repaid etc.

One thing that did surprise me is that they said I could continue to use my existing accountant in conjunction with their scheme. I'm sure Nixon Williams would take a dim view of such an arrangement.

fullyautomatix
18th March 2015, 18:35
Hi all,

New to this site as a contributor (closet reader for a while) and had a query some of you seasoned clever types may be able to answer.

Been contracting for a while doing the usual low salary/dividends option, maximising things as much as possible with my wife who doesn't have a separate job.

I was introduced to an onshore tax scheme by a friend for a company called Lambard Wealth.

Their website and their FAQs are here - w ww.l-wealth.com/faqs - Lambard Wealth » FAQ’s (Sorry Admin if links are not allowed) and they state "Our strategies do not utilise Company Loans". HOWEVER, after speaking to one of their guys, it turns out they DO utilise company loans, which has already set some pre-alarm warnings going.

Not completely dismissing it but was hoping some of the more experienced people here with these schemes may be able to either spot glaring warning signs I'm missing or verify if this is an innovative product / old hat been done a million times elsewhere.

Thanks in advance!
M


Cant you just pay the tax that you owe on your income just like how everybody else ? What is so special about your circumstance that you feel you need an 'innovative' scheme to pay no tax ?

cojak
18th March 2015, 19:08
. I'm sure Nixon Williams would take a dim view of such an arrangement.

I would take a look at the parent of both companies before making such a sweeping statement if I were you...

StrengthInNumbers
18th March 2015, 22:07
Cant you just pay the tax that you owe on your income just like how everybody else ? What is so special about your circumstance that you feel you need an 'innovative' scheme to pay no tax ?

For the same reason many put money in pension and ISA. It's is everyone's right to do what they want as long as it legal although I would not touch a scheme with a barge pole based on all the regulation which have come in last 2 years.

malvolio
18th March 2015, 22:14
For the same reason many put money in pension and ISA. It's is everyone's right to do what they want as long as it legal although I would not touch a scheme with a barge pole based on all the regulation which have come in last 2 years.
But that's the whole point, and is what is clearly behind HMT's on-going challenges to what they call aggressive avoidance. ISAs exchange tax free gains for capital accessible to HMG. Pension funds are intended for use by anyone. EBTs and similar are intended to stretch the returns on an invested pension fund post retirement, not to defer tax on earned income. Film Production companies are intended to fund films, not generate losses to be offset against profits.

Use the schemes for the purpose they were intended for and nobody complains. Use one for the wrong reason and you deserve what you get.

LandRover
19th March 2015, 07:25
For the same reason many put money in pension and ISA. It's is everyone's right to do what they want as long as it legal although I would not touch a scheme with a barge pole based on all the regulation which have come in last 2 years.

None of this would have come about if it wasn't for IR35. So people looked for alternatives and an industry of tax specialists jumped at offering these alternatives. But the evil intent of using retrospective legislation combined with DoTAS is a disgusting abuse of powers, and shameful.

Anyone thinking of joining a scheme should run a mile now as you can not trust any government that moves the goalposts and acts with such abusive authority against natural justice.

RoastedSlopes
19th March 2015, 07:27
But that's the whole point, and is what is clearly behind HMT's on-going challenges to what they call aggressive avoidance. ISAs exchange tax free gains for capital accessible to HMG. Pension funds are intended for use by anyone. EBTs and similar are intended to stretch the returns on an invested pension fund post retirement, not to defer tax on earned income. Film Production companies are intended to fund films, not generate losses to be offset against profits.

Use the schemes for the purpose they were intended for and nobody complains. Use one for the wrong reason and you deserve what you get.

I take it you are in a limited company set up?

Obviously beneficial to portray yourself as a business as apposed to self employed skilled worker? Lots of tax benefits.

Please don't make sweeping statements like this, it shows you to be very careless.

EBT schemes were an option for many over many years, no government policy or rules closed these down even though they were registered with HMRC.

But as has been said, these schemes were over 3 years ago!!

DonkeyRhubarb
19th March 2015, 07:33
None of this would have come about if it wasn't for IR35.

IR35 created the market for schemes. Unintended consequences and all that.

Boobetty
19th March 2015, 09:47
Completely agree, this is all down to IR35, and it is this that drove me away from Ltd into the schemes to begin with. Then, once the disguised remuneration rules came in, I moved to PAYE, but the tax was insane. 50% plus employer's NIC giving me a marginal tax rate of 63.8%. I worked with permanent employees who were shoving weekend work my way because, hey, you're a contractor, you're getting paid for this. But at 37% take home, f*** that.

DotasScandal
19th March 2015, 09:56
Completely agree, this is all down to IR35, and it is this that drove me away from Ltd into the schemes to begin with. Then, once the disguised remuneration rules came in, I moved to PAYE, but the tax was insane. 50% plus employer's NIC giving me a marginal tax rate of 63.8%. I worked with permanent employees who were shoving weekend work my way because, hey, you're a contractor, you're getting paid for this. But at 37% take home, f*** that.

1000 times This.

webberg
19th March 2015, 10:18
I take it you are in a limited company set up?

Obviously beneficial to portray yourself as a business as apposed to self employed skilled worker? Lots of tax benefits.

Please don't make sweeping statements like this, it shows you to be very careless.

EBT schemes were an option for many over many years, no government policy or rules closed these down even though they were registered with HMRC.

But as has been said, these schemes were over 3 years ago!!

The fact that a "scheme" was "registered" with HMRC means nothing and is an example of how it is very easy to make judgements in hindsight based on how the various parties policies and motivations have altered over the period in question, driven by the fact that the UK is broke and this Government (and the previous and next) are scrapping every barrel they can find.

HMRC has very successful used the media to create the impression that ALL tax planning is somehow immoral and potentially illegal. They have persuaded Government to pass into law legislation that is arguably (and sometimes actually) retrospective on the grounds that it is a seam of money that they missed because they were asleep at the wheel. The attraction for a politician who needs votes to "crack down" on those who don't pay their "fair" share is obvious. They rely upon HMRC to make the rules but pay little attention when they produce "unfair" results.

Let's be honest. Some people on this forum knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they paid less tax than a PAYE employee. That can be justified in many ways but ultimately they KNEW and there can be little sympathy now.

Many more did not KNOW. They bought into the "expert in the room" myopia and assumed that as "everybody" else was doing this and there were no reports of HMRC counteraction, then what they were doing was industry norm. Contractors encouraged this as it reduced day rates.

Tax is NOT a moral issue. It is a political and legal construct. HMRC is trying to use the court of public opinion to over rule more than 100 years of jurisprudence. Given that the Government sets its policy by tabloid headline and most people get their "news" from the headline and first two paragraphs of newspaper/Reddit/TV articles, is it any wonder that the true position is not explored?

We should make moral judgements about matters of morality.

We should make legal judgements about matters of law.

If Parliament thinks that something is immoral and needs to be reinforced by law, then by all means make a law. (If you don't like it, get elected and change it).

What is WRONG is making a judgement TODAY that something was morally wrong some years ago and that a law made NOW can correct that. That is UNACCEPTABLE legally, morally and politically but is exactly what is happening.

For more rants - please call 01234 567890 for a quote.

fullyautomatix
19th March 2015, 10:25
Completely agree, this is all down to IR35, and it is this that drove me away from Ltd into the schemes to begin with. Then, once the disguised remuneration rules came in, I moved to PAYE, but the tax was insane. 50% plus employer's NIC giving me a marginal tax rate of 63.8%. I worked with permanent employees who were shoving weekend work my way because, hey, you're a contractor, you're getting paid for this. But at 37% take home, f*** that.


And so decided to pay no tax instead of 63.8%. Nice.

malvolio
19th March 2015, 10:40
I take it you are in a limited company set up?

Obviously beneficial to portray yourself as a business as apposed to self employed skilled worker? Lots of tax benefits.

Please don't make sweeping statements like this, it shows you to be very careless.

EBT schemes were an option for many over many years, no government policy or rules closed these down even though they were registered with HMRC.

But as has been said, these schemes were over 3 years ago!!
I am and have been for 20 years, selling my extensive expertise in a fairly wide area of IT services. I have multiple clients and pick and choose when and where I work, I control my P&L, I make a consistent profit and pay all the taxes I am liable for. So in what universe does that make me not operating a business?

EBT schemes were never intended for protecting salaries, only pension payrolls. When bankers started using them for stop paying UK taxes, HMRC got interested and the fun started.

As for IR35 protection, don't make me laugh. The rules for IR35 are well understood and manageable. Thinking there was some magic scheme when someone gets paid 15% of your gross and give you 85% back an dno taxes due was never even vaguely realistic, and only a fool would have thought it was.

squirrel
19th March 2015, 11:59
And so decided to pay no tax instead of 63.8%. Nice.

Do you pay 63.8% tax?

convict
19th March 2015, 12:47
And so decided to pay no tax instead of 63.8%. Nice.
what's your point troll?

DonkeyRhubarb
19th March 2015, 13:17
Jeez there are some sanctimonious prigs out there.

No doubt paying themselves minimum wage and a shed load of divis, and all sorts of other tricks to minimise their tax bill. Contriving their contracts so they don't look like disguised employees.

Not tax avoidance of course. Perish the thought.

malvolio
19th March 2015, 13:28
Jeez there are some sanctimonious prigs out there.

No doubt paying themselves minimum wage and a shed load of divis, and all sorts of other tricks to minimise their tax bill. Contriving their contracts so they don't look like disguised employees.

Not tax avoidance of course. Perish the thought.
Yes it is avoidance, I totally agree. Snag is, it's entirely acceptable. Or are you saying that people should wrongly state their position and go out of their way to pay taxes they don't actually owe? I thought you were against paying taxes for which you aren't actually liable?

I'm not getting into this stupid loop again. People who took to schemes to avoid IR35, rather than umbrellas or learning how to deal with it, without understanding the risks they were taking were either foolish or mistaken or, most likely for most of them, totally misled. That has no bearing at all on those that didn't take that route.

DonkeyRhubarb
19th March 2015, 13:34
Yes it is avoidance, I totally agree. Snag is, it's entirely acceptable.

I don't want to get into an argument but I doubt Government/HMRC would see it that way.

They may view it that many freelancers are abusing incorporation purely for tax purposes.

squirrel
19th March 2015, 13:45
I'm not getting into this stupid loop again.

Then stay off these threads.

We may be foolish, we may deserve everything that's coming to us in your opinion and you have every right to that opinion but there are a lot of very worried people out here facing a very uncertain future looking for some level of comfort that there is support and to fully understand what is happening.

The bollox you're spouting does not help in any way whatsoever and it's a shame that you seem to take pleasure in it.

malvolio
19th March 2015, 14:10
Then stay off these threads.

We may be foolish, we may deserve everything that's coming to us in your opinion and you have every right to that opinion but there are a lot of very worried people out here facing a very uncertain future looking for some level of comfort that there is support and to fully understand what is happening.

The bollox you're spouting does not help in any way whatsoever and it's a shame that you seem to take pleasure in it.
Just to be clear, I take no pleasure at all in your problems; in fact you have both my sympathy and support in your various fights. That doesn't alter my opinion, which I've held since around 2007 when this all started to go pear shaped, and if some takes a dig at how I choose to run my life and my business, they will be reminded of that opinion.

OnYourBikeGB
19th March 2015, 14:22
Yes it is avoidance, I totally agree. Snag is, it's entirely acceptable.

Especially to those benefitting from it, eh? Surely you don't think, even for a nano-second, that Joe Public, whose opinions were made loud and clear to us on S58 by you, think it's acceptable. If you do, you are very seriously deluded. I'm not being a hypocrite here, people should follow the law. But please don't try to sit on that high moral stool of yours, I think one of the legs is missing.

squirrel
19th March 2015, 14:25
Use one for the wrong reason and you deserve what you get.

... was your opening gambit in this thread so it's no wonder that there are those who would have a go at you. You, as one would say on the playground, started it this time.

Your answer to the ISAs post was absolutely legitimate and spot on (not that you need any validation from me of course!) but you spoiled and personalised it with that last sentence about deserving what you get which is why I could only draw the conclusion I did.

DonkeyRhubarb
19th March 2015, 14:36
All the contractors I've ever worked with had the hallmarks of disguised employees. I don't mean what was written in their contracts (right of substitution etc), I mean what they were actually doing on a day to day basis for the client.

There was always some element of Supervision, Direction or Control. And when has a right of substitution ever been exercised? Smoke and mirrors is what that is.

That's not to say that there aren't some out there who are genuinely in business on their own account. It's just I've never come across one.

The only reason most people get away with it is because IR35 is unenforceable. But that does not mean the authorities regard it as acceptable.

malvolio
19th March 2015, 14:56
... was your opening gambit in this thread so it's no wonder that there are those who would have a go at you. You, as one would say on the playground, started it this time.

Your answer to the ISAs post was absolutely legitimate and spot on (not that you need any validation from me of course!) but you spoiled and personalised it with that last sentence about deserving what you get which is why I could only draw the conclusion I did.
It's no excuse of course, but look at the time stamp for that post... :igmc:

Boobetty
19th March 2015, 15:22
you have both my sympathy and support in your various fights

You have a perverse way of expressing your 'sympathy and support'.

normalbloke
19th March 2015, 15:48
I am and have been for 20 years, selling my extensive expertise in a fairly wide area of IT services. I have multiple clients and pick and choose when and where I work, I control my P&L, I make a consistent profit and pay all the taxes I am liable for. So in what universe does that make me not operating a business?

EBT schemes were never intended for protecting salaries, only pension payrolls. When bankers started using them for stop paying UK taxes, HMRC got interested and the fun started.

As for IR35 protection, don't make me laugh. The rules for IR35 are well understood and manageable. Thinking there was some magic scheme when someone gets paid 15% of your gross and give you 85% back an dno taxes due was never even vaguely realistic, and only a fool would have thought it was.



They were anything but well understood in 2001 when I and a lot of contractors joined a scheme. But now, I agree, IR35 is better (though not wholly) understood and joining a scheme now is sheer folly.

DonkeyRhubarb
19th March 2015, 16:45
I am and have been for 20 years, selling my extensive expertise in a fairly wide area of IT services. I have multiple clients and pick and choose when and where I work, I control my P&L, I make a consistent profit and pay all the taxes I am liable for. So in what universe does that make me not operating a business?


I suspect you are the exception that proves the rule. You won't find many IT contractors operating like you at most client sites. I've certainly never met one.

Scruff
28th October 2015, 09:24
I have just been called by "Ricky" from Lambard. After a few minutes of listening to his dribble, he was sent off to do the Lambada. I don't trust their Trust.

Allegedly they have won 2 cases against HMRC and all that Jazz...

webberg
28th October 2015, 18:54
http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-scheme-enquiries/106940-tempted-join-new-contractor-scheme-ask-following.html

Scruff
13th April 2016, 08:37
Just had "Ricky" on the phone again. He really needs to remember how to Lambada, since the last lesson was forgotten. Reminder lesson given.

Same Bulltulip about having won 2 cases, 8 years ago.