One of the stated aims of the loan charge was to prevent "future use of disguised remuneration arrangements".
Sir Amyas recorded some 6,000 instances of scheme use post March 2016 - clearly the message was not getting through.
Today we were advised by a client of another "compliant" umbrella that is owned and operated by somebody who has a long history in arrangements, many of which remain under active enquiry.
Usual sales speak of 80%+ take home etc.
Stay away.
Sir Amyas recorded some 6,000 instances of scheme use post March 2016 - clearly the message was not getting through.
Today we were advised by a client of another "compliant" umbrella that is owned and operated by somebody who has a long history in arrangements, many of which remain under active enquiry.
Usual sales speak of 80%+ take home etc.
Stay away.