Overdrawn Capital Account Scheme (Aston Mae / Glen Mae / Procorre)

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Much as I admire the optimism above, you'll find that HMRC do regard this as a scheme. That's a word that HMRC has deliberately loaded with negative connotations, but at the end of the day, regardless of semantics, you had money in a legal form that was claimed to be non taxable.

I hope you mean that, if you did some work and were remunerated in a way that purports to be anything else other than taxable.I understand there has to be a connection between the funds made available and services rendered to someone that funded the "scheme" albeit via one or more third parties.

Why else would anyone pay you or put someone else in funds on your behalf, why would you work for nothing?

[webberg]

I think you've answered your own question.

Nobody works for nothing. Everybody works for payment.

Here, you worked = money arrived in your account.

If you can think of any reason why a third party would send you a gift of money or make you a loan which is not in any way connected with your work - and you can prove that to a Judge - you will not be taxed on it.

I've been investigating these schemes for several years and I have not come up with a reason.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

I think you've answered your own question.

Nobody works for nothing. Everybody works for payment.

Here, you worked = money arrived in your account.

If you can think of any reason why a third party would send you a gift of money or make you a loan which is not in any way connected with your work - and you can prove that to a Judge - you will not be taxed on it.

I've been investigating these schemes for several years and I have not come up with a reason.

I was really trying to help other posters understand why all of these schemes are under investigation, why HMRC , are,perhaps rightly, driven by eliminating artificial ways of avoiding tax as opposed to legitimate tax planning methods that may have been used to reward employees for their efforts...eg share incentive schemes.

Im not condoning their apparent retrospectivity which is abhorrent, their apparent lack of humanity or their manifest dereliction of duty in the past but many would argue there appears to be a line which has been crossed, perhaps in many or most cases innocently I couldn't say but if everyone made a stash and didnt pay any tax where would the country be then?

What is clearly wrong is that many have gotten into this much deeper than they could imagine and would most likely have stopped sooner had enough action been taken, and that promoters have taken a cut of hard working folks earnings and will not face any hardship in sorting out the mess they have caused.

[dog]

Nobody works for nothing. Everybody works for payment

With respect to promoters mentioned or taking part on here, well done Webberg for finally admitting the above.

In case anyone is interested Webberg works at WTT and often writes relevant articles. WTT charge joining and monthly fees on top.

Noboby works for nothing, everyone works for payment - as written by Webberg presumably of himself.

Such a statement doesnt apply to many people who work as unpaid volunteers, eg doing charity work etc, who genuinely want to help people and don't expect anything in return.

I'm not disrupting or trolling this thread; merely stating the obvious.


Caveat emptor applies not just to dealing with scheme promoters but also dealing with fee seeking promoters of solutions which may or may not work

[webberg]

I've never hidden who I am or what we do or how much we charge.

Easy to criticise from behind a forum name but might I suggest carry more weight if we knew who you were and understood your motivations?

[cojak]

With respect to promoters mentioned or taking part on here, well done Webberg for finally admitting the above.

In case anyone is interested Webberg works at WTT and often writes relevant articles. WTT charge joining and monthly fees on top.

Noboby works for nothing, everyone works for payment - as written by Webberg presumably of himself.

Such a statement doesnt apply to many people who work as unpaid volunteers, eg doing charity work etc, who genuinely want to help people and don't expect anything in return.

I'm not disrupting or trolling this thread; merely stating the obvious.


Caveat emptor applies not just to dealing with scheme promoters but also dealing with fee seeking promoters of solutions which may or may not work

We know all of this, and we also know it’s the duty of everyone to perform due diligence before they sign anything. Your post will appear amongst many saying the same thing, many of those posts come from webberg himself.

There is already a stickied thread for those people not wanting to interact with webberg, Phil or other providers. You are welcomed me to move your posting over there if you wish.

[Bombus]

Much as I admire the optimism above, you'll find that HMRC do regard this as a scheme. That's a word that HMRC has deliberately loaded with negative connotations, but at the end of the day, regardless of semantics, you had money in a legal form that was claimed to be non taxable.

Moreover, it was money you were obliged to repay. It's hard to escape a conclusion that money given to you that is repayable, is not a loan?

As to bringing a case, I agree that HMRC should have done that sooner. On average from opening enquiry to first case hearing, I'd be allowing 8 to 10 years.

That does not prevent you from taking the case. You can apply to the Tribunal today and get the ball rolling. If you do, you can expect lots of delaying tactics from HMRC, lots of moves from them designed to increase costs and complexity and a general dragging of heels until they are ready.

However, the Tribunal system is designed to be accessible to YOU.

Sitting back and waiting from HMRC can be done of course, but don't complain about the time it takes, when YOU can control the timetable.

Money I was obliged to repay? How so?
Seems your profile on LinkedIn has gone astray?

[Bombus]

Hi, would it be possible for you forward the letters - just been contacted by HMRC but don't have letters

Plus any advice on dealing with HMRC would be great

My letters have my figures included but general form was:

HM Revenue & Customs
Counter-Avoidance Blackburn S0033
Newcastle
NE98 1ZZ
Date 13 October 2015
Your Ref xxxxx xxxxx
NI Number
Case Ref CFSS-NNNNNNN

Dear <HMRC Person>

Check of Self-Assessment tax return – year ended 5 April 2014
Thank you for your letter dated 21 September. Please find the responses to your questions below:

(1) Name of partnership: Glen May LLP
Address of partnership: 37A Hong Kong Street, Singapore (059676), Singapore
I do not have a copy of the partnership accounts for the year ended 5th April 2014

(2) I did not receive loans. I did receive the following overdrawn capital account payments during
the tax year:

(3) I received the following profit payments which were reflected on my self- assessment:

Yours sincerely

[TroyT]

Has anyone else investigated the settlement option?

What does this mean, or what is the correct answer to:
“I intend to have the loans written off within 30 days of the settlement date” question on the settlement pack?

What does then even mean?

What are the implications of having or not having the (alleged) loans written off and inheritance tax?

[TroyT]

Settlement- IHT

You need to read the threads appropriate to the scheme.

Glen May did not use a trust and in theory even HMRC would struggle to find an IHT charge.

So if I accept HMRCs Settlement Offer, I shouldn’t need to have any fictional loans settled and incur any Inheritance Tax?