Has anyone heard of Paul Baxendale-Walker?

Should I be worried about "The Asset Trust" "patented" by him & disturbing Google searches on him?

Didn't find your answer?

Elderly husband and wife clients have £400,000 quoted share portfolio which has been managed by stockbroker for decades. Clients and stockbroker are all as honest as they come.

Separate financial planner has persuaded clients to set up "The Asset Trust" marketed by unregulated third party. This involves setting up a new company and some offshore trustees' involvement.

Brief blurb on how "The Asset Trust" works mentions Paul Baxendale-Walker being the "inventor" of the scheme. I googled his name and am very worried about what I read about him. It makes for disturbing reading.

Financial planner now wants stockbroker to transfer all the quoted shares into the company or trust. When the stockbroker questioned the financial adviser about  how the scheme works the financial planner could not directly answer the stockbroker's questions.

I am very worried in case the arrangement ends up in tears. Has anyone any experience of this person and/or this scheme.

Or am I worrying unnecessarily. Blurb indicated that the arrangement has HMRC's blessing and is now the ONLY solution to protect assets which survives the Finance Act 2011 changes.

 

 

Replies (79)

Comments for this post are now closed.

avatar
By Manchester_man
01st Dec 2016 02:41

If you ask me, no, you are not worrying unnecessarily.
The alarm bells are quite deafening. HMRC's blessing my bottom.

Thanks (4)
By SteveHa
01st Dec 2016 09:33

The line about "HMRC's blessing" is a dead giveaway. This is usually used when an SRN has been allocated, which is not "Blessing", it means HMRC are aware of an avoidance scheme and may enquire.

As with anything, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

EDIT: The guy has form when it comes to defeated tax avoidance schemes. I'd advise a barge pole to my clients.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
01st Dec 2016 09:31

Struck off by the Law Society, convicted forger, [***] magazine owner. Sounds an ideal person to invest with.

The phrase "Run and keep running" leaps to mind.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By bernard michael
01st Dec 2016 10:18

Is the "separate financial planner" regulated by the FSA ?
To protect your position
You must make sure that you write a very firm letter to your clients advising them NOT to transfer their money. Clients are notorious for ignoring advice and then trying to blame the accountants

Thanks (5)
avatar
By hbelton
01st Dec 2016 10:18

I can only agree with everyone else, would not touch with a barge pole!
Avoid totally

Thanks (5)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
01st Dec 2016 10:27

Did somebody mention bargepoles?

Thanks (3)
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 11:54

Hi Penelope

Please ignore the trolls above they are not experts in tax/trust law, and so run a mile with pitch forks when such comes up.

yes PBW is a colourful character, but has no day to day involvement in the company running/organising/managing these structures.

I personally have and offer these products for a number of years now, I am more than happy to answer any questions you have or the stockbroker has, please pm me

Also the neat trick trick is when in trust they can then still be handled by the stockbroker for him to carry on investing.

Regards
CH

Thanks (2)
Replying to carlh:
avatar
By landscaper
01st Dec 2016 12:00

Portia - a troll - you'd better be ready!

Thanks (1)
Replying to landscaper:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 15:33

Thanks for the heads up

I am King Leonidas
and this is SPARTAAA!!!!!

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
01st Dec 2016 12:13

carlh wrote:

Hi Penelope

Please ignore the trolls above they are not experts in tax/trust law, and so run a mile with pitch forks when such comes up.

yes PBW is a colourful character, but has no day to day involvement in the company running/organising/managing these structures.

I personally have and offer these products for a number of years now, I am more than happy to answer any questions you have or the stockbroker has, please pm me

Also the neat trick trick is when in trust they can then still be handled by the stockbroker for him to carry on investing.

Regards
CH

So you can make an informed decision, you should be aware carlh has a history of saying trusts are a solution to all ills. They also have a history of not backing those statements up when pressed. Past tactics include providing links to irrelevant cases. challenging those questioning their claims to prove they DON'T work or simply saying they can't explain why in a public forum. (Since there is a clear implication that you could pay them to explain to you instead, I have repeatedly reported them for self-promotion in breach of the site rules for this).

carlh could dispel the concern about trusts by giving concrete information about them in the public forum (that being what the forum is for). The fact that he continues to evade proper public scrutiny of his claims (only wishing to discuss the current issue by PM for example) makes me doubt they would stand up to such scrutiny.

It's up to the OP whether they want to consult regardless of course.

Thanks (4)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 13:04

I dont charge anything to explain this. I give evidence /answers to the interested parties its then up to them, you cannot force someone.

"Honi Soit Qui mal Y Pense"

Thanks (1)
Replying to carlh:
By mrme89
01st Dec 2016 13:19

carlh wrote:

I dont charge anything to explain this. I give evidence /answers to the interested parties its then up to them, you cannot force someone.

"Honi Soit Qui mal Y Pense"

Care to provide a link to the scheme that you successfully defended in court?

Thanks (1)
Replying to mrme89:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 14:39

I have not defended anything, I do not own/provide the structure.

but

House of Lords (Dextra Accessories Ltd)
House of Lords (Sempra Metals Ltd)
helped solidify the structure

both on google

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
01st Dec 2016 14:45

carlh wrote:

I have not defended anything, I do not own/provide the structure.

but

House of Lords (Dextra Accessories Ltd)
House of Lords (Sempra Metals Ltd)
helped solidify the structure

both on google

If they're both on Google perhaps you could provide links.

Because the Dextra case I am finding seems to show the trust was ineffective and the Sempra case appears not to relate to trusts at all. Since the first would undermine your claims and the second is irrelevant I must be looking at the wrong cases.

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
01st Dec 2016 16:58

Both EBT cases. Nothing to do with so called Asset Protection Trusts.

Thanks (1)
Replying to carlh:
By mrme89
01st Dec 2016 12:27

carlh wrote:

Hi Penelope

Please ignore the trolls above they are not experts in tax/trust law, and so run a mile with pitch forks when such comes up.

yes PBW is a colourful character, but has no day to day involvement in the company running/organising/managing these structures.

I personally have and offer these products for a number of years now, I am more than happy to answer any questions you have or the stockbroker has, please pm me

Also the neat trick trick is when in trust they can then still be handled by the stockbroker for him to carry on investing.

Regards
CH

To the OP, I hope, and suspect you will, ignore the above claptrap.

Carl has come unstuck on many conversations on Aweb regarding trusts. I'm led to believe he's nothing more than a glorified salesman.

EDIT - I've tried to ignore his [***] since he kept arguing that his scheme had beaten HMRC at tribunal, but refused to give links to the case for confidentiality reasons.

Thanks (2)
Replying to carlh:
avatar
By Adam12345
01st Dec 2016 12:20

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/paul-baxendale-walker-trial-...

Colorful is one word for it - we had a individual who approached us that used one of his employee benefit trusts, he paid £7,500 for this privilege.

HMRC investigated, and stated that it was not a legitimate scheme which resulted in him avoiding no tax, payment of legal fees, oh and the £7,500 fee he paid for essentially nothing.

If it is to good to be true, it normally is.

Thanks (3)
Replying to carlh:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
01st Dec 2016 12:56

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the man selling these magic, all singing, all dancing trusts showed up, to not adequately explain to anbody how they manage to be all things to all people.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 13:54

PNL

I have offered mutiple times on this forum to 'adequately explain' either via telephone, Skype, Fax, Face 2 Face at any office/home all at my expense.

regards
ch

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
01st Dec 2016 14:11

carlh wrote:

PNL

I have offered mutiple times on this forum to 'adequately explain' either via telephone, Skype, Fax, Face 2 Face at any office/home all at my expense.

regards
ch

You have never offered to explain on this forum itself. The purpose of this forum is to share knowledge so it is available to all members after all.

This leads to two conclusions.

1) Your claims would not stand up to detailed scrutiny. If they could, you would be able to provide a broad outline or link to an actual case that had been won.

2) You are simply using this forum as a marketing platform, which is a direct breach of the terms and conditions of use.

If I ever took you up on your offer, it would only be on the understanding I would be free to post a full transcript of our discussion here afterwards. I am guessing you would find that unacceptable.

Thanks (2)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 14:45

2) not really someone asked the question I am trying to help

I am more than happy to come and see you and yes more than happy for you to post a full transcript of the discussion.

Regards

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
01st Dec 2016 14:48

carlh wrote:
I am more than happy to come and see you and yes more than happy for you to post a full transcript of the discussion
Busy time of year, so can't make the time right now.

But since you're happy for a full transcript to be published, why not just post details here now? Then we can all decide whether making time to see you is worthwhile.

Thanks (0)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 15:07

HAHA lol thought you would bottle it when I offered, it takes about 3 hours of talks to go through, with questions asked as well. Far to much to be put on here.

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
01st Dec 2016 16:43

carlh wrote:

HAHA lol thought you would bottle it when I offered, it takes about 3 hours of talks to go through, with questions asked as well. Far to much to be put on here.

So give us a summary.

Because in the past you have been quite clear that you won't post ANY detail because it would be proprietary information (though you have been unclear whether it was your own or someone else's). That being the case, I don't actually believe that you would be happy for me to post a full transcript. I suspect that, at best, you would say there were some parts that were "obviously" confidential and couldn't be posted.

Just to be clear though, I never said I wanted to set up a meeting. I said, IF I were to do it, I would insist on being allowed to post a full transcript. You've never posted anything that makes me think your schemes are workable (quite the opposite in fact). If I think something is a complete waste of time, I generally don't set up meetings to confirm that.

In all honesty, if you are asking a minimum of 3 hours to even find out what you have to offer, then you really need to work on your pitch. Reps that say they need 3 hours of my time, but who can't give me enough information in a quick phone call or e-mail to make me see that as worthwhile, get told where to go.

Thanks (1)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 17:04

Ah ok pm me your telephone number or email address give a me a date and time when you are free and lets at least start a dialog then. I cannot be more fair than that.

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
04th Dec 2016 13:49

carlh wrote:

Ah ok pm me your telephone number or email address give a me a date and time when you are free and lets at least start a dialog then. I cannot be more fair than that.

So, despite the fact you've said you would be happy for me to share all details here, you still insist on a private initial discussion.

Why? Either you are prepared to share details here, in which case you could just do so, or you aren't. As I said earlier, what you have posted to date makes me think any conversation with you would be a waste of time. Until you post some detail in a public forum (where you have said you are happy for detail to be posted) convincing me otherwise I'm not setting up any sort of meeting with you, even a telephone one.

Thanks (1)
Replying to carlh:
Quack
By Constantly Confused
01st Dec 2016 17:34

carlh wrote:

HAHA lol thought you would bottle it when I offered, it takes about 3 hours of talks to go through, with questions asked as well. Far to much to be put on here.

(Just FYI HAHA is fine, lol is fine, you don't need both. Unless you were going for the 'lots of love' interpretation?).

Thanks (1)
Replying to carlh:
avatar
By bernard michael
01st Dec 2016 13:57

carlh wrote:

Hi Penelope

Please ignore the trolls above they are not experts in tax/trust law, and so run a mile with pitch forks when such comes up.

yes PBW is a colourful character, but has no day to day involvement in the company running/organising/managing these structures.

I personally have and offer these products for a number of years now, I am more than happy to answer any questions you have or the stockbroker has, please pm me

Also the neat trick trick is when in trust they can then still be handled by the stockbroker for him to carry on investing.

Regards
CH

Are you registered by the FSA. If so (which I doubt) please provide your registration number ?

Thanks (1)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 14:20

no I am not, I do not provide the stuctures, I only use and explain them.

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
avatar
By bernard michael
01st Dec 2016 14:44

carlh wrote:

no I am not, I do not provide the stuctures, I only use and explain them.

So the advocate of the scheme is not regulated and therefore not bound by rules on which anyone following his explanations can rely on
Would carlh care to state whether he/she gets any remuneration for this activity and what is their relationship with the scheme salesmen

Thanks (1)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 15:31

I am a introducer to the structures, why is because many years ago I looked into them to protect my business profits and my assets, and it worked, so a few years ago I started to offer these to others, now having 100s of happy clients.

yes I do get a % of the structure fee, I have nothing to hide, but there is only so much information I can put on a open forum

Look I am not defending PBW but I will defend his work, because I know and my clients know it works.

The OP asked the question, and again this is an open offer to anyone who uses this forum that I am more than happy to meet and explain how to protect your assets you have built up.

regards

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Dec 2016 17:16

carlh wrote:

I

Look I am not defending PBW but I will defend his work, because I know and my clients know it works>

Yep, cannot thank him enough for the end result with Glasgow Rangers- maybe the schemes worked/maybe they didn't, does not really matter, but one thing that is apparent is they helped chase away the better quality interested parties and look who then got to own Rangers.

On the plus side sold a fair few papers and kept the forums buzzing.

Any other high profile fallouts with which his schemes are reputed to be connected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baxendale-Walker

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
By SteveHa
01st Dec 2016 14:01

I suppose this very successful scheme (not) - http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1514/Advocate-General-for-Scotlan..., or his sentence for impersonating HMRC, his admissions of fraud and forgery all speak very highly of this character, then?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 12:56

As you can see it gets very warm in here.

Penelope please send me the question the stockbroker has, and I will answer it, the proof is in the pudding, once discussed please feel free to put your thoughts on here for all to see.

Regards
ch

Thanks (2)
Replying to carlh:
By penelope pitstop
01st Dec 2016 13:18

I am presently sitting on the fence watching the fight, although it seems to be going one way at the moment.

Over the weekend, when I have time to do it justice, I will put all my concerns down for all to see.

By the way, the scheme has been "sold" to the client as a means to get around IHT on the death of the surviving spouse as well as protection against nursing home fees.

Thanks (0)
Replying to penelope pitstop:
Flag of the Soviet Union
By thevaliant
01st Dec 2016 14:37

Well! That seems plausible. Presumably if you don't have any assets left, your estate can't be liable for IHT and you can't pay care home fees!

Seems legit......... :)

Thanks (2)
David Winch
By David Winch
01st Dec 2016 13:29

Mr Paul Baxendale-Walker has had a history of controversy. He has been subject to disciplinary action by the Law Society (ultimately being struck off as a solicitor), was once charged with conspiracy to defraud by the Serious Fraud Office, and has criminal convictions for forgery and contempt of court.
Recently he was sued for negligence following the failure of a tax avoidance scheme. He successfully defended that claim on the basis that the client would still have gone ahead with the failed scheme even if he had received an appropriate 'health warning' from Mr Baxendale-Walker.
David

Thanks (4)
avatar
By North East Accountant
01st Dec 2016 13:44

Client company owned 50% by my client and 50% by A.N.Other, who had their own accountant.

A.N.Other went into a similar trust scheme with Baxendale-Walker paying huge fees to set up. My client asked why he should not go into as well and after looking at it my advice was don't touch it with a bargepole. This despite other accountant ringing me and saying if I recommended it to my client my share of commission was £28K!

A.N.Other - is now bankrupt and lost everything.
My client - is still going strong and still a client.

Thanks (4)
Replying to North East Accountant:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 14:02

Sorry but what you are saying does not add up, if A.N.Other went into a trust structure, how can he have lost everything ?? he does not own the items in the trust hence they cannot be lost.

I can understand going bankrupt ie no income, but you cant go bankrupt and lose everything just by going into a trust structure.

reason 'protection'.

Thanks (1)
Replying to carlh:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
01st Dec 2016 16:52

carlh wrote:
he does not own the items in the trust hence they cannot be lost.

If he doesn't own the items in a trust structure, then presumably that means he does not have them available at will. He could therefore go bankrupt because he put assets into a trust and could not get them back when he needed them to pay some liability.

So it would seem like putting assets into a trust could lead to bankruptcy. Perhaps you could explain what part I am missing here, because "reason 'protection'" is not an explanation.

Thanks (1)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 17:27

yes he still uses / has access to them, he controls them not owns them, ownership creates liability.

most of London is owned offshore, they are still rented/lived in. Think Duke of Westminster (Grosvenor Trusts) not owned but controlled.

Thanks (0)
Replying to carlh:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
04th Dec 2016 13:45

carlh wrote:

yes he still uses / has access to them, he controls them not owns them, ownership creates liability.

most of London is owned offshore, they are still rented/lived in. Think Duke of Westminster (Grosvenor Trusts) not owned but controlled.

Leaving aside how someone can have all the rights of ownership but not have ownership (which is the main thing you've never explained). You are missing my point.

Someone puts a load of assets into a trust. Liabilities arise from elsewhere that they cannot clear with assets outside the trust. Are you saying that, they can sell the assets within the trust at a moment's notice? Because if you are, then the whole thing sounds like a sham. If not, then putting assets into a trust could put someone into bankruptcy where they deprive themselves of assets that would otherwise have prevented it.

Thanks (1)
Replying to North East Accountant:
By penelope pitstop
01st Dec 2016 14:16

Thanks, but can North East Accountant please explain what assets went into trust and exactly what happened to them and how did this result in bankruptcy of A N Other client.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
01st Dec 2016 14:28

Minute, born, there's, one, every or words to that effect.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
01st Dec 2016 15:22

"Elderly couple", "unregulated", "colourful character" (one of the great understatements), "takes 3 hours to explain".

Doesn't pass my sniff test. YMMV.

Thanks (1)
By Alastair Johnston
01st Dec 2016 15:33

I heard PBW invented the Rangers EBT. The jury's still out on that one, so to speak.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Alastair Johnston:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 16:12

no ebts are dead unless BDO can pull something out of their hat,

The structures I use are for high net worth individuals, sole traders, directors, shareholders,

employees cannot use these.

Thanks (1)
By Alastair Johnston
01st Dec 2016 15:38

And in an office somewhere in Glasgow, two CTAs and two lawyers work full time handling HMRC enquiries into PBW's schemes. This could of course be an indication of how many people bought them, rather than their susceptibility to HMRC enquiry or their likelihood of success, but take from this nugget what you will.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Alastair Johnston:
avatar
By carlh
01st Dec 2016 16:20

13000 last time I checked, but I also heard that HMRC anti abuse team that send out enquiry letters has just been disbanded.

Thanks (1)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
01st Dec 2016 17:44

I would encourage the OP to google Dimsey and Allen.

Thanks (3)

Pages