Anyone filing a 2018/19 tax return for the LC, based on the advice of a tax advisor

[webberg]

The trouble is, advisors can be very persuasive. (They need to earn a living after all.)

If the party paying the advisers fees is the promoter, then - with some really rare exceptions - the words you use above are not from the adviser. They are the words of the promoter often putting a spin on what the adviser has said - or rather what the promoter heard.

Take QC opinions. Not only were these written for the QC's client, i.e. the promoter and not you, but you have no idea without asking for and reading the instructions to the QC, what has he/she actually been asked.

I would guess that in our client population less than a dozen clients ever asked to see the QC opinion.

Anticipating that you may argue that even if you saw it, would you understand it, the obvious answer is that you could have asked promoter, promoter's adviser, QC to explain those parts you did not understand and possibly even put into writing that explanation. If that was from a professional tax adviser (i.e. somebody with actual qualifications and professional indemnity insurance) and turned out to be so inaccurate, misleading or wrong so as to be negligent, you have a case.

How many people did this? Almost none.

[TheDogsNads]

Not really pointless.
Unless you are a tax expert, have read, studied and understood all the relevant information from HMRC, then you are relying on the expertise of others.
The posts that are available here are not necessarily made by qualified individuals, the questions asked may not contain all the relevant information, so taking an internet forum as a source of truth is not a good thing to do. Advice given on here is worth what you paid for it. At least this forum is free, unlike others where you have to pay a membership fee for the privilege.

Although maybe your post above was just to increase you post count?

If you bothered to read my post instead of running around fighting fires, you'd have read I agreed with Mal's post.

I dont post for the sake of it. But hey, never mind that small fact.

[DealorNoDeal]

I wasn't referring to advisors, in the past, who were involved with the schemes.

I'm talking about those who are advising people now as to what to put on their 2018/19 tax return to "deal with the LC".

WTT may not be giving advice about what to put on the 2018/19 return but others clearly are.

[starstruck]

I wasn't referring to advisors, in the past, who were involved with the schemes.

I'm talking about those who are advising people now as to what to put on their 2018/19 tax return to "deal with the LC".

WTT may not be giving advice about what to put on the 2018/19 return but others clearly are.

Of course WTT are giving advice on what to put on the 2018/19 return - it's been discussed on here many months ago in fact. Essentially if anyone fills in the Loan Charge boxes on the return they are self-declaring they are caught by the Loan Charge and it's game over. There were discussions on here about the dangers of not filling in the return "correctly" (meaning the LC boxes). I can't be bothered to look up the threads, but I remember the conversations. The only game in town for avoiding the LC (without settlement obvs) is writing something in the white space as to why you believe you're not caught by the LC (which you can then argue the toss with HMRC about). I think lots of 'groups' are following this path. But what other choice do people have? if you can't side step the LC you can't defend your enquiries later as you're already bankrupt! I'm confident I am not giving away anything "secret" here or providing HMRC with some secret knowledge, before anyone accuses me of this.

[WTFH]

If you bothered to read my post instead of running around fighting fires, you'd have read I agreed with Mal's post.

I dont post for the sake of it. But hey, never mind that small fact.

And if you’d bothered to read my post, engaging your brain, you’d realise that I don’t think you and mal are 100% correct in the idea that you must understand everything yourself and not employ people who know better than you.

[DealorNoDeal]

Of course WTT are giving advice on what to put on the 2018/19 return - it's been discussed on here many months ago in fact. Essentially if anyone fills in the Loan Charge boxes on the return they are self-declaring they are caught by the Loan Charge and it's game over. There were discussions on here about the dangers of not filling in the return "correctly" (meaning the LC boxes). I can't be bothered to look up the threads, but I remember the conversations. The only game in town for avoiding the LC (without settlement obvs) is writing something in the white space as to why you believe you're not caught by the LC (which you can then argue the toss with HMRC about). I think lots of 'groups' are following this path. But what other choice do people have? if you can't side step the LC you can't defend your enquiries later as you're already bankrupt! I'm confident I am not giving away anything "secret" here or providing HMRC with some secret knowledge, before anyone accuses me of this.

Then it comes down to the degree of risk.

What some people may be being advised to put on their 2018/19 return might land them in even deeper trouble. (GAAR, penalties etc)

This probably doesn't apply to WTT but I bet there are some highly aggressive approaches out there to "mitigating" the charge.

[malvolio]

And if you’d bothered to read my post, engaging your brain, you’d realise that I don’t think you and mal are 100% correct in the idea that you must understand everything yourself and not employ people who know better than you.

And if you'd read mine, you don't need to understand the finer interpretations of the relevant legislation or the details of the logical interpretation of those details, merely that the advisor can explain to you the impacts - good and bad - of any particular course of action. That's why they are paid advisors, they do the detail and then present the rational answer, ideally as a "Do this" statement or, more likely, as a "Do this but with these caveats". ANd, more importantly, can explain exactly how, with a proper impact statement for each option.

To use a crude example, believing someone telling you they can get you a new Aston Martin for the price of a Fiesta and not questioning exactly how when the Aston is 20 times the cost of a Fiesta is not following advice, it's being wilfully stupid.

[regron]

Then it comes down to the degree of risk.

What some people may be being advised to put on their 2018/19 return might land them in even deeper trouble. (GAAR, penalties etc)

This probably doesn't apply to WTT but I bet there are some highly aggressive approaches out there to "mitigating" the charge.

if you are facing bankruptcy anyway, then any last throw of the dice could and probably would look attractive, no matter how many penalties may be put on them. Especially if the outcome would equal the same.

[WTFH]

And if you'd read mine, you don't need to understand the finer interpretations of the relevant legislation or the details of the logical interpretation of those details, merely that the advisor can explain to you the impacts - good and bad - of any particular course of action. That's why they are paid advisors, they do the detail and then present the rational answer, ideally as a "Do this" statement or, more likely, as a "Do this but with these caveats". ANd, more importantly, can explain exactly how, with a proper impact statement for each option.

To use a crude example, believing someone telling you they can get you a new Aston Martin for the price of a Fiesta and not questioning exactly how when the Aston is 20 times the cost of a Fiesta is not following advice, it's being wilfully stupid.

I guess the thing is, is the tax advisor/accountant doing your tax returns for you and tells you that what they have done is legal and correct, should you haver a second accountant to review the figures, and then a third to review the second's?
How many accountants do you need to be reasonably confident that they are all giving the best advice and filling in your tax return correctly?

[NotAllThere]

Accepting advice uncritically is why some people are in a mess now...

I advised my QC to buy a Encrochat device. He asked me a few questions, did some research (google), asked me a few more questions, and as a result of my answers bought one. He's now being investigated by the NCA...

Did he accept my advice uncritically, or did he rely on my expertise in an area where he has none?