Dividend Classes

Dead_keen

Pennywise wrote: »

I'm not worried about that. Most real accountancy practices stayed well away from the EBT schemes because of the risk.

From my experience is that is a naive view of history. After the Dextra special commissioners decision it became open season for many firms (so "real" firms like E&Y - and I mention them as someone I know said that they paid a fortune for them to implement a loan scheme and a fortune to extract them). After Part 7A came out, then I absolutely agree that "real" firms stayed away.

Pennywise wrote: »

It's a completely different scenario. Reason being that it turned taxable income into non taxable income allegedly. Dividend splits are different because they remain taxable, just on a different person. You're comparing apples with pears.

But your arguments for doing alphabet shares are exactly the same as for doing EBT loans (everyone does it, tax cases show it works, if it was not acceptable HMRC would have changed the law). Saying they "remain taxable" was something that someone probably told PA Consulting before their date with the Court of Appeal said that the dividends were employment income. One difference though is in the early days on EBT loans there was no example in HMRC's manuals setting out how the specific, targeted, anti-avoidance legislation could be applied.

Pennywise wrote: »

Perhaps those at risk of losing their homes should have checked out the schemes properly before going in - a proper chartered accountant would have almost certainly told them of the risks.

They would have said: of course there is a risk, but everyone does it, tax case shows it works, if it was not acceptable HMRC would have changed the law. Have a look at this from the ICAEW: http://economia.icaew.com/news/june-2015/nt-advisors-director-severely-reprimanded

"They considered the possibility of a claim was remote as they warned clients as part of their advice package that litigation with HMRC was possible."

And then look at this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hmrc-protects-more-than-900-million-through-10th-win-against-nt-advisors

So what words do you use when you tell your clients of the risk? Or do you not?

chrismac1

Dead keen appears to have diverted this thread into non-relevant drivel.

Dead_keen

chrismac1 wrote: »

Dead keen appears to have diverted this thread into non-relevant drivel.

You can say that but it is just another example of you attacking the person rather than the points being made.

Another example in this thread would be that you tried to rubbish what someone's accountant said without knowing the facts and circumstances ("your accountant is pizss poor").

Yet another on this thread: "I suspect WOM could be an HMRC stooge"

And this is a common theme with your post on other threads. It does detract from much of what you say.

You say "any decent accountant ought to be fine with it" but this idea is not something without significant risk. And I know a lot of decent accountants and tax advisers who would not advise this.

It may be just the way you have worded it, but it sounds like you are happy to help with tax evasion. You say:

The tax point for dividends is the date they are declared on a dividend voucher by order of the Board, and minuted as such

(which is not actually right, but it is not relevant to my point) and then go on to say:

I think most accountants would be fine with revisiting any dividends already done which were not tax-efficient

I think most accountants would not want to be involved in fraud.

I'm guessing your next reply will be to attack me again. Fill your boots.