New "employee grants" based scheme - beware of operator "Umbrella Choice"

[Scotslaw]

So, just got a sales call from a company calling themselves "umbrella choice", based in Exeter/Devon.
When they claimed to be able to better my take home over a limited company model, I asked them about what sort of mechanism they employ.
They said that it's a "grant" based model, which apparently is different to loans as loans have an expectation of repayment attached. But the basic model is the same, your business makes a B2B payment to a company, the sole purpose of which, is to redirect it to your personal account for tax avoidance purposes.
Apart from giving the salesperson a long talk about HMRC guidelines on tax avoidance, and the ethics of trying to sell something which has short term allure but is essentially a time bomb, I also advised him to look for a different job elsewhere, because HMRC are also going after people who promote/sell such avoidance schemes.
Please be aware of particularly this company, but also about the new "grant" based model which is making it's rounds. As usual, don't fall for it, and remember, if it's too good to be true, it usually is.

[DaveB]

So, just got a sales call from a company calling themselves "umbrella choice", based in Exeter/Devon.
When they claimed to be able to better my take home over a limited company model, I asked them about what sort of mechanism they employ.
They said that it's a "grant" based model, which apparently is different to loans as loans have an expectation of repayment attached. But the basic model is the same, your business makes a B2B payment to a company, the sole purpose of which, is to redirect it to your personal account for tax avoidance purposes.
Apart from giving the salesperson a long talk about HMRC guidelines on tax avoidance, and the ethics of trying to sell something which has short term allure but is essentially a time bomb, I also advised him to look for a different job elsewhere, because HMRC are also going after people who promote/sell such avoidance schemes.
Please be aware of particularly this company, but also about the new "grant" based model which is making it's rounds. As usual, don't fall for it, and remember, if it's too good to be true, it usually is.

Based in Leamington Spa according to their Companies house entry and website.

One of a string of 17 companies set up by the same guy who is listed as being based in Mauritius. Handed over to the current directors in April last year, only one of whom is a share holder (1 share).

No accounts filed to date.

Ten foot poles, tulipty sticks etc. to be deployed as required.

[GreenMirror]

HMRC are also going after people who promote/sell such avoidance schemes.

Is there any evidence for that?

[Scotslaw]

Is there any evidence for that?

I believe it's one of the provisions of the new Finance Bill:
Penalties for tax avoidance scheme promoters - Contractor Weekly

[Iliketax]

Is there any evidence for that?

Off of the top of my head...

This is the POTAS guidance: Promoters of tax avoidance schemes: guidance - GOV.UK

This is the enablers guidance: Tax avoidance enablers - GOV.UK

This is an example of HMRC threatening enablers: Attempts to avoid an Income Tax charge when a company is wound up (Spotlight 47) - GOV.UK

This is an example of a tribunal decision where HMRC tried (but was unsuccessful) in saying someone was a promoter under the DOTAS regulations for a contractor loan scheme: Revenue & Customs Curzon v Capital Ltd (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Anti-avoidance) [2019] UKFTT 63 (TC) (28 January 2019)

This is a link to a company in liquidation. If you read the liquidators statement you can wonder why the company owes HMRC £5,651,778.76. ROOT3 TAX LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House) That company was involved in a case about whether something was notifiable or not under DOTAS and so you may wonder whether some or all of the £5m related to some sort of DOTAS penalties. I've no idea if we will ever find out. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFT...7/TC06115.html

[GreenMirror]

Off of the top of my head...

This is the POTAS guidance: Promoters of tax avoidance schemes: guidance - GOV.UK

This is the enablers guidance: Tax avoidance enablers - GOV.UK

This is an example of HMRC threatening enablers: Attempts to avoid an Income Tax charge when a company is wound up (Spotlight 47) - GOV.UK

This is an example of a tribunal decision where HMRC tried (but was unsuccessful) in saying someone was a promoter under the DOTAS regulations for a contractor loan scheme: Revenue & Customs Curzon v Capital Ltd (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Anti-avoidance) [2019] UKFTT 63 (TC) (28 January 2019)

This is a link to a company in liquidation. If you read the liquidators statement you can wonder why the company owes HMRC £5,651,778.76. ROOT3 TAX LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House) That company was involved in a case about whether something was notifiable or not under DOTAS and so you may wonder whether some or all of the £5m related to some sort of DOTAS penalties. I've no idea if we will ever find out. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFT...7/TC06115.html

They have plenty of powers. They rarely use them. Except the little guy.

[Iliketax]

They have plenty of powers. They rarely use them. Except the little guy.

You ask for evidence. I give you evidence.

[GreenMirror]

You ask for evidence. I give you evidence.

You fail to distguish between having powers and using those powers.

Lets look at your 5 links.

1. Evidence of power. Not of using it.
2. Ditto
3. A threat.
4. Well at least they tried.
5. It seems unclear.

HMRC knew about DTA and LC in 2001. They waited until 2008 for DTA and 2017 for LC(arguably there were warnings in 2011).

I might add that since IR merged with C&E HMRC have had all the powers C&E had. Which are considerable.

I welcome all action against promoters. At the moment there seems to be little and HMRC are mostly going after the little guy.

Perhaps the closest they got to using powers was becoming IoM police for the day to raid Montpelier offices. A case with so little evidence that when it came to court the judge threw it out after the prosecution evidence. So they can do it - but only when motivated by spite(in this case against WG).

Or perhaps you think this state of affairs(of bullying the little guy) should continue?

HMRC and parliament(which lets HMRC do what it wants when it wants) need a serious re-alignment. If not, public sector rules to private sector(future of contracting) is a foregone conclusion.

[cojak]

It’s not for Iliketaxto reply to this post, he simply gave you the evidence you requested.

This thread is going off-topic and is now closed.