Again, surprised judge did not mention the alternative of suing the advisors.
Are you being sued Justin?
Just a wild guess given your posts today/yesterday. Perhaps, I don't know, a loan scheme where you managed to remove income tax, by converting the salary or bonus payment into a loan, but failed to point out that a loan will stay outstanding until repaid - so is an open invitation to be taxed by a future government, even if the loan scheme is valid at the time?
Eh? Yet another Aweb nutter (that's at least 3)!
The only relevance to my post yesterday is that this is another example of where an advisor can be sued for a failed tax avoidance scheme that does not work in the first place and leaves the taxpayer worse off absent the planning.
That is not the case with EBT loan planning is it (as has been stated by me previously here - see https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/april-2019-loan-charge-pii-c... )?
Also what's interesting is that the judge accepted the intended trust based IHT tax mitigation planning is plain vanilla and not tax avoidance, yet other people think different. See:
See also para 85 (esp para 88) et seq here: http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//judgmentfiles/j11276/TC...
Again unsurprised that you do not actually give any detail on what makes the case interesting.
Seriously, if you can't be bothered to take the time to actually say why you are sharing the case (a single vague line does not cut it) why should anyone else bother reading it?
There's #4 for you!
Justin Bryant wrote:
There's #4 for you!
It's hardly surprising how little respect you get around here when this is the level of debate you aspire to. Why are you so reluctant to say what you think makes a case "interesting"? Are you afraid that if you clearly state your reasoning you might actually have to debate on whether that is a reasonable interpretation of the case?
To be fair to Justin (nutter magnet that he appears to be... utter magnate that he wishes he was), his OP here does say what it says in the tin. "Here's a link to a case. I recommend you don't read it. I'm posting it because the judge did not suggest suing the advisor."
I'm sure that, had there been anything of interest in what the judge did say (as opposed to what wasn't said), Justin would have pointed that out.
There’s a saying, Justin, that one should be careful what one wishes for.
let try for #5...….it wasn't the 'scheme' that was at fault though, it would have worked in the scenario set down but the advisers didn't clarify/confirm the resident status of the taxpayer....
Indeed in your case the scheme didn't fail....its just the loan is repayable....hold the phone....a loan....repayable!?!
its only a loan when income tax might be due in the original period.
When the loan charge might be due, it is all behind a closed period, please dont look over here, to do so would be retrospective. Loan? What loan? Its not a loan, not fair. Teacher, teacher, its not fair. You stupid people don't understand, what a bunch of idiots not understanding my complex tax planning. I am much more intelligent than you who don't understand it. etc etc etc.
I am sure Justin, Gordo et al would love to make this complicated - indeed the schemes are....but the principle isn't...for it to work the loan must be repayable.....except we all know the only way the schemes work are for the loans not to be repaid....enter smoke and mirrors...