Edge EBT thread Edge EBT thread - Page 45
Page 45 of 195 FirstFirst ... 3543444546475595145 ... LastLast
Posts 441 to 450 of 1948

Thread: Edge EBT thread

  1. #441

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gopi View Post
    Hello to all there,

    I am also one from the same lot. Please count me in and add me in the list for any communication as well.

    I had one last year for 2008-2009 and now this time I have two at the same time..one for 2009-2010 and one for 2010-2011.

    I am willing to contribute to the pot when the time and need comes.

    By the way last time around in end of February this year, spoke to Michelle and wrote to her few emails and got a good response.

    This time, email for Edge bounced back, land line did not work, and Michelle's cell phone is ringing but not picking up.

    Will be sending my appeal letters tomorrow by recorded post.

    Can any one please confirm the address it should go to?
    Should it be the same as on the letter I have recevied?

    Good luck to us all!!

    This is where I am sending it to

    Miss L J Stopp
    Local Compliance
    Individuals & Public Bodies
    PO Box 168
    Bootle
    L30 4WN

  2. #442

    Old Greg is my bitch

    administrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BekColada View Post
    Yup, got my letters yesterday so you can add me to the group - please keep me in touch with any developments here - I would be eager to get involved with any appeals group or attend any seminars regarding this.


    Admin, can you please grant me PM rights?
    Sorry, was out and about yesterday. PM rights now granted.

  3. #443

    Old Greg is my bitch

    administrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by delyan View Post
    I was employed by Edge Consuting during 2009-2010 and as it tunred out also affected, received HMRC letter few days ago.. So I am joining this thread, and would like to have PM granted as I am interested in receiveing a copy of the decision as per Michael J Perry message sent earlier. If any session concerning this topic is going to be organised I am willing to contribute, and definintely would like to attend.
    PM rights now granted.

  4. #444

    Old Greg is my bitch

    administrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,181

    Default PM access

    also granted to RichhardC and Gopi.

  5. #445

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    96

    Default Saleos Credentials & some free assistance

    Thank you Admin.

    My credentials are as a CTA with over 14 years PQE. I started at HMRC in 1992 and latterly spent more than a decade of that at the forefront of tax planning in the UK as a Director of a specialist tax consultancy company. This, of course, gave me a great deal of experience of dealing with HMRC enquiries, particularly those led by SI. I set up my own consultancy company only recently to focus on enquiry work.

    Specifically I have worked for clients in the contractor sector since 2002. I was part of the team that devised the arrangement used by Edge. I am currently representing over 3,000 contractors in very similar arrangements in their dealings with HMRC. I have advised on, and dealt with HMRC enquiries into, a large number of EBT loan cases outside the contractor sector over the past decade or so.

    I was also personally involved in one of the leading cases on Discovery (which given the disclosure at least in later years of a DoTAS number of SATRs will be important): HMRC v Charlton, Corfield & Anor (see the FTT decision upheld in the Upper Tribunal). I am fully conversant with the technical arguments presented by HMRC, and the rebuttals and have opinion from two leading QC's to call upon as necessary.

    By way of assistance to those on the forum below is an extract of an update I posted to contractors for whom I am already acting within three hours of the release of the decision in Boyle.

    This is the case that we have been awaiting. It was heard in May this year but the decision has only today been released. You will see that HMRC have been victorious. They are already referring to it as a “comprehensive victory”……..We expect HMRC to publicise the decision widely. Indeed they may well write to you about it in the coming days or weeks.

    Whilst we cannot deny that HMRC won the case and that is in itself unhelpful, Boyle will NOT determine the arrangements dealt with [by me elsewhere].

    The Boyle case involved a contractor structure run by Sandfields/Consulting Overseas. It was, in my experience, a good strategy, implemented very poorly. We understand that the vast majority of their contractors had already settled with HMRC, paying full taxes, some years ago.

    There is absolutely no doubt that the poor implementation contributed to the taxpayers defeat. I was involved in a large number foreign currency loan schemes more than a decade ago. All, implemented properly, were agreed by HMRC. This contrasts starkly with the Boyle case and highlights the importance of proper, professional, implementation.

    …..My initial reaction is that whilst unhelpful the case is easily distinguished from our own and in many ways not particularly informative. My immediate response to HMRC having been sent the case earlier this morning was:

    “……..

    I have read the case only quickly, and just the once, but my initial reaction is that Boyle does little to move matters forward.

    You will not be surprised to hear that I expect many to be able to easily distinguish their own cases (and I will most certainly assert that [those cases I am representing] can do so). Given the findings of fact (and indeed arguments (or rather lack of) presented for the taxpayer I think the Boyle case will be of little wider application. What is clear is that it was very poorly implemented with, for example, no evidence that the foreign currency ever existed. In that context the overall decision is unsurprising.

    I would also say that it is not quite the comprehensive victory that it might first appear. Even in the poor factual circumstances the Tribunal found that the loans were loans (within the BIK provisions) and not earnings but concluded on the evidence that the loans had been written off and hence were taxable as emoluments. I find the latter conclusion surprising in some respects but one clearly driven by the poor facts. I do not believe that a Tribunal would reach such a decision in different circumstances. But the finding that they were not earnings is in many respects helpful to taxpayers particularly when looking at questions surrounding Discovery about which Boyle tells us nothing given the complete absence of disclosure. Furthermore, and quite astonishingly, the taxpayer's representative appeared to make no reference to four previous EBT loan cases where the Tribunal, presented with fuller argument, reached a different conclusion. I would argue that the five cases taken together now unequivocally put to bed arguments that loans such as those in [those cases with which I am dealing] can be earnings within PAYE.

    On Discovery there was no DOTAS number and no white space disclosure. Indeed on reading the judgment it is stated at para 78 that no reference was made to the loans at all. So the decision on Discovery is neither surprising nor of application for those cases within DoTAS or who made white space disclosure. That will be the case for many in receipt of Discovery assessments in [those cases upon which I am advising] and others. On this point I do not see the decision as relevant at all.

    With regard to the Transfer of Assets Abroad legislation again the arguments presented for the taxpayer appear to have been very thin indeed. It sheds no light at all on the arguments that XXXXXXXXXXX [redacted], or other cases mean that the legislation cannot apply. It is most surprising that they were not even presented by the taxpayer.

    I have to say that the lack of reference to what are obviously potentially relevant cases reflects poorly on the representation the taxpayer received. It does not appear to have been a particularly even fight. Whilst on one hand I am surprised that a case with such a poor factual matrix even made it to the Tribunal I have no doubt that more experienced representation for the taxpayer would have seen the case be a more relevant pointer to some of the technical arguments I expect to the set out in those cases with which I am dealing. As it is, my initial reaction is that Boyle adds little beyond clarifying those arguments I expect HMRC to make.

    If Admin are happy to do so can I please ask that anyone willing to join a collective fighting fund DIRECT MESSAGE ME or email me at my company email address (if Admin is happy to include the link) so that I can evaluate its viability. I do not wish to miss anyone posting within the thread.

    Many thanks



    Quote Originally Posted by administrator View Post
    Hi Saleos,

    Welcome to the forum. I have checked out your company and, while it was only formed this year I have seen your LI profile and don't mind this post being included. Please do read the terms and conditions of using the forum:
    Bulletin Board Terms and Conditions :: Contractor UK

    Especially point 6 regarding marketing your services. With this in mind I have removed the link to your company but if anyone readying the thread wants to check you or your company out then can simply search for Saleos in Google and they will be able to find all they need to know I am sure.

    We would be more than happy for you to post what advice and assistance you can give the individuals here caught up in this so, in return for allowing your post through, please do feel free to post what updates you can or give what advice you can as I am sure we would all appreciate it.

    Kind Regards

    Admin

  6. #446

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Hi,
    Going to send off my appeal letter today for my 2009/10 demand. Just wanted some confirmation from you guys that i should send the simplified appeal letter as advised by Michelle Booth as some posters seem to think the full version is better.
    Thanks

  7. #447

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2

    Default Representative group / fighting fund

    I also am an ex-Edge employee and have received another HMRC Notice of Assessment for 09/10. For 08/09 I obtained advice from Edge (Michelle Booth), but they seem to be no more.

    After googling I came across this forum, which has been provided some very useful information - I wish I had found it earlier. I have read all posts and wish to join the representative group and contribute to a fighting fund.

    Admin: Can you please assign me PM rights please so that I can directly contact TheDandy.

  8. #448

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by administrator View Post
    PM rights now granted.

    Many thanks!

  9. #449

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Like others, I am also an ex-Edge employee and have received another HMRC Notice of Assessment for 09/10. Seems like Michelle Booth at Edge are no more which are what others are finding, very convenient!

    I interested in contributing to the fund. Also, whats the best appeal letter to use as there are quite a few around.

    Admin: Can you please assign me PM rights please

    <admin note>Done!</admin note>

  10. #450

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Hi could you please give me pm rights too. Many thanks

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •