Can anyone 1 help me please!!!!

never-in-doubt

Charco wrote: »

She put an arrangement in place for less pleasant times. Tell me what parent doesn't think that way. She may have done something that an accountant wouldn't do but it's clear her intentions weren't fraud and it's something that can be rectified. !

Haha - you should meet my old accountant, he used to ask me for stock (for free) and he'd make the value disappear! Suffice to say he was never short of the latest gadgets (when I used to run a company).... in fact, he was the one that told me I could claim for shoes cos I spend 55% of my working day standing up/walking around...... I mean, that's just great advice lol

(he even suggested I invest in a house for the kids (using the company to pay for it) in case my company went belly-up which I did as well, still have the flat to this day in daughters name)

Charco_2

dont get me wrong ha ha, tax avoidance always brings a smile to my face as does accounting for the future, tax after tax after tax just adds up to theft in the end.

Your man/woman sounds like a lot of fun but what we're talking about with Debdumber isn't polished like that, it's a half measure. It's clear there's no intent to defraud or be dishonest and to be frank myself, if you're NOT planning ways to bypass the various stealth taxes and ways for your kids to inherit you life's work without Gordon Brown dipping his hands into your pockets then you're a fool!

coolcait

It's always fascinating watching the battle for the moral high ground.

Let me throw in a moral pitchfork or two. The OP changed his/her user name, and acknowledged that change openly (not always the case) giving reasons why he/she had done so.

So, why create a further name combining the two, and perpetuating the original name? 'Benifer/Tomkat/etc style.

If people are uncomfortable using a new name which the OP might have chosen in a self-deprecatory way, then they can acknowledge that in their reply.

They can even ask if it's OK to use the happy and cosy acronym 'dad'.

And then the thread can focus on addressing the issues, rather than wondering who the heck 'combinationname' is.

never-in-doubt

But the argument is not about the username - you're making something of nothing!

The argument was the actual advice given and the fact fraud (or tax evasion) was mentioned. You're going off on a rant over something irrelevant lol (don't be having a go at me - just pointing out the obvious!)

coolcait

never-in-doubt wrote: »

But the argument is not about the username - you're making something of nothing!

The argument was the actual advice given and the fact fraud (or tax evasion) was mentioned. You're going off on a rant over something irrelevant lol (don't be having a go at me - just pointing out the obvious!)

In your opinion (which, of course, I respect just as much as you respect mine - just pointing out the obvious .).

Fraud/tax evasion/tax avoidance. All of these descriptions have been used on this thread - by those who have been accused of being judgemental, and by those who are accusing others of being judgemental.

Advice? If the ISA is in dumbanddumber's ('dad') name then 'dad', and his mum are likely to face difficulties. Either the ISA is taken at face value, and deemed an asset of 'dad'. Or it's not. Which may have consequences for both 'dad' and his mum.

If the OP chose to change the username, then it wasn't 'nothing' to him. I choose to respect his choice on that point.

never-in-doubt

too complex for this time of day mate - lol. :huh::huh:

You'd be no good at Plain English text proofing :rotfl:

coolcait

never-in-doubt wrote: »

too complex for this time of day mate - lol. :huh::huh:

You'd be no good at Plain English text proofing :rotfl:

:D:D:D

Stop trying to fish. I only rise to interesting bait

Charco_2

coolcait wrote: »

In your opinion (which, of course, I respect just as much as you respect mine - just pointing out the obvious .).

Fraud/tax evasion/tax avoidance. All of these descriptions have been used on this thread - by those who have been accused of being judgemental, and by those who are accusing others of being judgemental.

Advice? If the ISA is in dumbanddumber's ('dad') name then 'dad', and his mum are likely to face difficulties. Either the ISA is taken at face value, and deemed an asset of 'dad'. Or it's not. Which may have consequences for both 'dad' and his mum.

If the OP chose to change the username, then it wasn't 'nothing' to him. I choose to respect his choice on that point.

I assume they've changed their name because their original name was their ACTUAL name and for future reference they'd like some a bit more anonymous. The next threads they post on will have no reference to their former name and so it wont be a problem. It doesn't matter to me if their name is ManUtdSuck, it's the problem that needs addressed, not their moniker!

Charco_2

Right Dumbanddumber, it's not all doom and gloom!

Complicated, but not all doom and gloom.

I doubt you're going to have proof of where the original money came from, but you should be able to argue (and you can show that) the money was simply in your care - this will be countered that it was a gift, or a gift with reservation (ie the interest was to be returned to your mother) - however your story is that the money was in your care in case anything happened to your mother (which is sensible future accounting/planning) and now that you're insolvent you can no-longer hold the money in trust so your mother is moving it along to another trusted family member - all perfectly reasonable!

I dont know if you actually mentioned this, it got all caught up in the tax/benefit cheat drivel last night: Does your mother have other ISA's like one in her own name or in the names of your other siblings?