PDA

View Full Version : Umbrella Company offering 87% return



frog61
12th February 2014, 09:02
Hello all
I've been advised by a friend of mine who is using a company called <mod snip> to use them instead of using my Limited company.
I am an IT contractor in the city.
I have been told that the company invoice the company I work for for the full amount of days worked, when they are paid, I am paid the same day.
my payment is around 85% of the gross payment from the company. This 85% is made up of the minimum salary, plus a loan.
The Loans beneficitary however would be myself wrapped up in a Personal Pension.
I am still awaiting for further information, but not being fully tax profeccient or expericaned on this, I would ask for any thoughts and advice.

I am guessing this is too good to be true, but wanted to check.

Thanks

LisaContractorUmbrella
12th February 2014, 09:22
Hello all
I've been advised by a friend of mine who is using a company called <mod snip> to use them instead of using my Limited company.
I am an IT contractor in the city.
I have been told that the company invoice the company I work for for the full amount of days worked, when they are paid, I am paid the same day.
my payment is around 85% of the gross payment from the company. This 85% is made up of the minimum salary, plus a loan.
The Loans beneficitary however would be myself wrapped up in a Personal Pension.
I am still awaiting for further information, but not being fully tax profeccient or expericaned on this, I would ask for any thoughts and advice.

I am guessing this is too good to be true, but wanted to check.

Thanks

Be afraid...be very afraid - have a read..HMRC Scheme Enquiries (http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-scheme-enquiries/)

cojak
12th February 2014, 09:24
Hello all
I've been advised by a friend of mine who is using a company called <mod snip> to use them instead of using my Limited company.
I am an IT contractor in the city.
I have been told that the company invoice the company I work for for the full amount of days worked, when they are paid, I am paid the same day.
my payment is around 85% of the gross payment from the company. This 85% is made up of the minimum salary, plus a loan.
The Loans beneficitary however would be myself wrapped up in a Personal Pension.
I am still awaiting for further information, but not being fully tax profeccient or expericaned on this, I would ask for any thoughts and advice.

I am guessing this is too good to be true, but wanted to check.

Thanks

Any umbrella offering this kind of a return these days is a dodgy cowboy outfit that will only attract lazy, greedy mugs.

See this for people who have been caught previously:
HMRC Scheme Enquiries (http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-scheme-enquiries/)

If you want to join those in that forum, go right ahead. Otherwise don't bother.

frog61
12th February 2014, 10:02
Thanks for this, I cannot find any literature regarding the pension element.
Obvioulsy the quetion is, how is the loan treated when you / personal pension is the benefitiary? what if any are the tax implications on this and what declarations should be made to the HMRC?
Speaking to them (mod snip) they do seem to suggest this has vetted by a tax specialist called Robert Venables QC.

agreed, this seems very suspicious, however I would ratehr knwo the full facts before discounting them.
thanks for the replies!

LisaContractorUmbrella
12th February 2014, 10:33
Thanks for this, I cannot find any literature regarding the pension element.
Obvioulsy the quetion is, how is the loan treated when you / personal pension is the benefitiary? what if any are the tax implications on this and what declarations should be made to the HMRC?
Speaking to them (mod snip) based in Carlise, they do seem to suggest this has vetted by a tax specialist called Robert Venables QC.

agreed, this seems very suspicious, however I would ratehr knwo the full facts before discounting them.
thanks for the replies!

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

DonkeyRhubarb
12th February 2014, 11:30
It truly beggars belief that anyone in their right mind would even consider these type of schemes now.

Pondlife
12th February 2014, 12:07
:spam:

3 posts, each mentioning the company name.

Just another snake oil salesman. :winker:

DirtyDog
12th February 2014, 12:28
:spam:

3 posts, each mentioning the company name.

Just another snake oil salesman. :winker:

Pretty unsuccessful salesman :)

LisaContractorUmbrella
12th February 2014, 13:01
Pretty unsuccessful salesman :)

:laugh I think he thought he'd get a better reception than he did

cojak
12th February 2014, 13:04
All references to the crap scheme provider removed and the OP banned.

He was that good.

LisaContractorUmbrella
12th February 2014, 13:09
All references to the crap scheme provider removed and the OP banned.

He was that good.

You're my hero Cojak :music:

eek
12th February 2014, 13:11
I particularly like this post where he doesn't know what he is selling.

Shame I didn't notice this earlier I could have had some fun with him :frown


Thanks for this, I cannot find any literature regarding the pension element.
Obvioulsy the quetion is, how is the loan treated when you / personal pension is the benefitiary? what if any are the tax implications on this and what declarations should be made to the HMRC?
Speaking to them (mod snip) they do seem to suggest this has vetted by a tax specialist called Robert Venables QC.

agreed, this seems very suspicious, however I would ratehr knwo the full facts before discounting them.
thanks for the replies!

ASB
12th February 2014, 13:15
Just a thought......

If it it not possible it is "simply" pay minimum wage salary, lob rest in a pension as a company contribution and charge a hefty fee for the privilege.

Immediate vesting can make that a viable strategy for old folks like me. But paying for the privilege is unncessary of course.

LisaContractorUmbrella
12th February 2014, 13:29
I particularly like this post where he doesn't know what he is selling.

Shame I didn't notice this earlier I could have had some fun with him :frown

You missed your chance there Eek :ohwell

gareth1981
12th February 2014, 14:07
Wasnt a plug, (not that I will be believed now). Reading the above, you will note I wasnt suggesting people to use the company, rather me wanting to know the facts, which you all kindly provided.

In anycase, thank you all for your advide, as suggested I will keep with Ltd company.
G

ContrataxLtd
12th February 2014, 14:40
All references to the crap scheme provider removed and the OP banned.

He was that good.

Well played!

I feel sorry for anyone that gets sucked in to these scheme by all the sales pitch not knowing what they are getting themselves into.

Martin

gareth1981
12th February 2014, 15:30
Just a thought......

If it it not possible it is "simply" pay minimum wage salary, lob rest in a pension as a company contribution and charge a hefty fee for the privilege.

Immediate vesting can make that a viable strategy for old folks like me. But paying for the privilege is unncessary of course.


Thanks ASB, thats the kind of constructive comment I was after, will look into this.
God help anyone new trying to get help on this site!

DaveB
12th February 2014, 15:36
Damn, missed this one. Was in the mood for a bit of dirt digging today.

Plus, Admin gets bored when he doesnt have any irate scheme providers moaning at him :smokin

Pondlife
12th February 2014, 15:40
Thanks ASB, thats the kind of constructive comment I was after, will look into this.
God help anyone new trying to get help on this site!

If so, why would you need to use a 'loan'? Do you expect your pension fund to pay back this 'loan' at some point.

Put it this way, you're saying you are willing to work a full week and have someone else receive the money for this. They then pay you minimum wage for the hours worked and then lend the rest of the money to your pension fund and charge you for the privilege. What happens when the directors disappear/do a runner and the receiving company decides to call in all monies owed (though loans made).

gareth1981
12th February 2014, 15:54
If so, why would you need to use a 'loan'? Do you expect your pension fund to pay back this 'loan' at some point.

Put it this way, you're saying you are willing to work a full week and have someone else receive the money for this. They then pay you minimum wage for the hours worked and then lend the rest of the money to your pension fund and charge you for the privilege. What happens when the directors disappear/do a runner and the receiving company decides to call in all monies owed (though loans made).


Partly.
What I am trying to find out is whether people have had experiance with this.
Without wishing to get banned, I was told the loan benefitiary would be the personal pension holder (ie: myself). I dont beleive they lend the money to the pension pot, I think the money is provided to the pension pot which in turn is lent to you. the charge comes from the gross amount invoiced for, which is in the single digit as a %. The question i wanted to understand is, assuming this was the case, who would have the recall rights on the loan, would it be purley the pension owner if they were the benefitiary. If so, then what are merits/dangers, tax implications of not recalling this loan, having a pension with such a loan debt, what is teh HMRCs view on this and does it impact any other pensions you may have?
Its all very well saying to ignore this scheme, which I will be, and direting my friend this this for advice, however doing a search on google doesnt show any discussions or advice on this, hence why I brought it up. This site should be an area to learn what is out there and why such schemes should be ignored / banned.

ASB
12th February 2014, 16:12
There are some circumstances where a pension fund can make loans. They are pretty limited but I believe an employer can under some circumstance borrow the cash from the pension fund.

I was thinking maybe something like:-

Pay employee minimum wage.
Pay balance into pension fund.
Employer borrows from pension fund
Employer makes back to back loan to employee

I suspect there are a whole host of hurdles to jump in order for the loan not to be taxable - at least at a point it gets written off. But I suspect the objective is to, in effect, get the pension money into the employees hands now rather than when they reach pensionable age.

As to whether it can be effective. I haven't got a clue. I imagine it will be effective until challenged. Probably not after that.

The tax planning industry will still be coming up with all sorts of jolly wheezes. Some may work for a limited period of time. Some people will go for them, but it is not exactly a risk averse method of moving forward.

Edit: there are also of course "unlock your pension now" type arrangements. In effect sellingpension rights to a 3rd part in exchange for something now. These could potentially be used to diver pension cash to a scheme member early - at a considerable cost no doubt.

Again, would it pass muster? Seriously doubt it, since the intent is clear. To get reward for employment to the individual now.

cojak
12th February 2014, 16:28
Partly.
What I am trying to find out is whether people have had experiance with this.
Without wishing to get banned, I was told the loan benefitiary would be the personal pension holder (ie: myself). I dont beleive they lend the money to the pension pot, I think the money is provided to the pension pot which in turn is lent to you. the charge comes from the gross amount invoiced for, which is in the single digit as a %. The question i wanted to understand is, assuming this was the case, who would have the recall rights on the loan, would it be purley the pension owner if they were the benefitiary. If so, then what are merits/dangers, tax implications of not recalling this loan, having a pension with such a loan debt, what is teh HMRCs view on this and does it impact any other pensions you may have?
Its all very well saying to ignore this scheme, which I will be, and direting my friend this this for advice, however doing a search on google doesnt show any discussions or advice on this, hence why I brought it up. This site should be an area to learn what is out there and why such schemes should be ignored / banned.

You were banned for repeatedly posting the name of the scheme provider. We have the debris of punters doing exactly what you are doing now and not listening to advise to ignore such schemes, crying in the HMRC Enquiries forum.

CUK no longer permits posters/salesmen naming schemes. Generic questions are permitted, specific ones aren't.

If you want to know why these schemes are a bad idea, find out if the scheme has a DOTAS number then have a look at that forum again.

gareth1981
12th February 2014, 17:42
I was thinking maybe something like:-

Pay employee minimum wage.
Pay balance into pension fund.
Employer borrows from pension fund
Employer makes back to back loan to employee

I suspect there are a whole host of hurdles to jump in order for the loan not to be taxable - at least at a point it gets written off. But I suspect the objective is to, in effect, get the pension money into the employees hands now rather than when they reach pensionable age.

As to whether it can be effective. I haven't got a clue. I imagine it will be effective until challenged. Probably not after that.

The tax planning industry will still be coming up with all sorts of jolly wheezes. Some may work for a limited period of time. Some people will go for them, but it is not exactly a risk averse method of moving forward.

Edit: there are also of course "unlock your pension now" type arrangements. In effect sellingpension rights to a 3rd part in exchange for something now. These could potentially be used to diver pension cash to a scheme member early - at a considerable cost no doubt.

Again, would it pass muster? Seriously doubt it, since the intent is clear. To get reward for employment to the individual now.[/QUOTE]

Thanks again ASB, this was what I was looking for.

gareth1981
12th February 2014, 17:51
You were banned for repeatedly posting the name of the scheme provider. We have the debris of punters doing exactly what you are doing now and not listening to advise to ignore such schemes, crying in the HMRC Enquiries forum.

CUK no longer permits posters/salesmen naming schemes. Generic questions are permitted, specific ones aren't.

If you want to know why these schemes are a bad idea, find out the scheme has a DOTAS number then have a look at that forum again.



Repeatedly…? You mean 3 times... the 'punters' you allude to, are not all doing what I am doing, I am asking questions as to the validity and logic behind such a scheme, what I am doing is also listening and taking advice. Through discussions on boards of this nature, as ASB has politely set forth, information and arguments are provided to advise myself but also anyone else coming across such schemes.
This very information actually helps people steer clear of such damaging schemes. Again, not that you will believe me I fear, I am not a salesman nor a poster, just someone who has been told about this scheme through a colleague and wanted to know the facts. Certainly will look at the DOTAS number, however I think from ASBs advice my decision has been made.
Cheers :smile

v8gaz
12th February 2014, 18:49
As to whether it can be effective. I haven't got a clue. I imagine it will be effective until challenged. Probably not after that.




Is that the same as "it's not stealing until you get caught" ?

v8gaz
12th February 2014, 18:51
what I am doing is also listening and taking advice.

No. You're not. :eyes

eek
12th February 2014, 19:28
Repeatedly…? You mean 3 times... the 'punters' you allude to, are not all doing what I am doing, I am asking questions as to the validity and logic behind such a scheme, what I am doing is also listening and taking advice. Through discussions on boards of this nature, as ASB has politely set forth, information and arguments are provided to advise myself but also anyone else coming across such schemes.
This very information actually helps people steer clear of such damaging schemes. Again, not that you will believe me I fear, I am not a salesman nor a poster, just someone who has been told about this scheme through a colleague and wanted to know the facts. Certainly will look at the DOTAS number, however I think from ASBs advice my decision has been made.
Cheers :smile

Read http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-scheme-enquiries/96136-hmrc-consultative-document-marketed-tax-avoidance-schemes.html and https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275070/Tackling_marketed_tax_avoidance.pdf

Then think through the logic behind the proposal which is that HMRC don't like dodgy schemes and are now attack them with vengeance and no care to justice. (Don't doubt this will pass because no MP will like to be called a friend of tax dodgers and anyone voting against this bill won't be able to deny it). Plus there is an election next you. Any MP seen to act against this bill will have a very unfriendly electorate to face...

Then just go and find a proper umbrella or get your accountant to set up a limited company for you. At least you will know that the money you receive is always going to be yours...

ASB
12th February 2014, 19:45
Is that the same as "it's not stealing until you get caught" ?

No, because everything needs to be determined in order to decide.

But, I think anybody would likely have a very hard job persuading HMIT that they had taken reasonable care. This would lead to penalties. They may argue it was negligent. Higher penalties, and so on.

However, if a consumer can show a genuine belief it works, good luck to them. But convincing HMIT of that would be very tricky.

LisaContractorUmbrella
17th February 2014, 11:34
This from HMRC:

Loans made by a pension scheme
The following loans from a pension scheme will be unauthorised payments. Loans to a:
scheme member
person or company connected to a member
person or company connected to a scheme employer
But a loan to a scheme employer will be an authorised payment as long as it meets the conditions described below.
Broadly a connected person is a relative, spouse or civil partner of the member. A company is connected to the member if the member has control of it.
A loan from an occupational pension scheme to one of the scheme’s employers will be an unauthorised payment unless all the following conditions are met:
The loan can’t be for more than five years.
Interest charged on the loan must be at least one per cent above the average base lending rate of the leading high street banks.
The loan must be secured as a first charge against assets of at least equal value to the loan plus the loan interest. There must be no other charge on any asset that takes priority over the pension scheme’s charge.
A charge is the legal right of the lender (the scheme) to be paid from the asset if the debt isn't paid on time.
The loan can’t be more than 50 per cent of the net value of the scheme assets.
The terms of the loan must require it to be repaid in equal annual instalments.

I am no expert on pensions but this would seem to suggest that there would be no benefit to a contractor if the loan from the pension scheme was paid across according to HMRC guidelines; if the mechanism is creating a sham arrangement which serves no purpose other than to avoid tax then the contractor could expect a roasting from HMRC sometime in the near future.

ASB
17th February 2014, 12:12
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.

LisaContractorUmbrella
17th February 2014, 13:06
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 :eyes It just never ceases to amaze me how many variants of the 'loan' scheme are being devised

jgoldsmithuk
4th April 2014, 15:21
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
4th April 2014, 18:32
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/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_PROD1_029990

And here http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/97939-if-seems-good-true-80-90-take-home.html

cojak
4th April 2014, 19:59
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
7th April 2014, 07:02
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 :happy

JMGB
17th July 2014, 15:09
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/default/files/Response%20to%20HMRC%20Consultations.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
17th July 2014, 15:15
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
17th July 2014, 15:18
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
18th July 2014, 07:56
If you do feel the need to play along Stek I'd be interested to see the mechanics of the scheme

Rob79
21st July 2014, 12:39
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.

LisaContractorUmbrella
21st July 2014, 12:56
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.

Excellent post :yay: