Tax avoiders to be deliberately bankrupted.....?..

[Alpinestars]

Jobbo said:

It doesn't say that the law takes precedence - it simply states which country's law applies.

Correct. And moreover, it relates to conduct in relation to the engagement letter, ie, within the contract. Hence the "what's this got to do with the price of fish". Although that's also sparked some debate.

[loafer123]

AW111 said:

loafer123 said:

No, I don't think so.

The 90p is for 1x125g tin.

Tesco do stuff like this all the time. I have taught my kids to do the calculations themselves on all multibuys as they are frequently a con. It also helps with their maths skills!

If the 90p is for 1x125g tin, which I think we agree on, what tins is the 2 for £2 offer? Unless there's missing info, it appears to be the same 125g tins.

Yes it may be that stupid/dodgy, but it may also include other products you can mix and match.

[V8 Fettler]

Jobbo said:

V8 Fettler said:

Example of a contract clause from a financial adviser's letter of engagement that recognises that the law has precedence over the contract:



AAT template letter of engagement

It doesn't say that the law takes precedence - it simply states which country's law applies.

You're part of the way there. A contract should state how disputes between the two parties are to be resolved. The AAT template letter of engagement states by default that an English court shall resolve any dispute i.e. English courts have jurisdiction; additionally, the AAT template states by default that English law shall be used to resolve the dispute i.e. English law governs the contract

Therefore, if one party decides that a contract clause is unreasonable then - for the default AAT template - an English court shall decide if that particular clause is unreasonable on the basis of English law. If the court decides that the particular clause is unreasonable then court can strike out that particular clause, the law having precedence over the contract.

[Jobbo]

V8 Fettler said:

You're part of the way there. A contract should state how disputes between the two parties are to be resolved. The AAT template letter of engagement states by default that an English court shall resolve any dispute i.e. English courts have jurisdiction; additionally, the AAT template states by default that English law shall be used to resolve the dispute i.e. English law governs the contract

Therefore, if one party decides that a contract clause is unreasonable then - for the default AAT template - an English court shall decide if that particular clause is unreasonable on the basis of English law. If the court decides that the particular clause is unreasonable then court can strike out that particular clause, the law having precedence over the contract.

Your second paragraph does not follow from the first.

That is a basic boilerplate clause stating that English law applies, which is just in case any random person tries to sue you in a different jurisdiction.

Generally, the law does not strike out clauses which are unreasonable. And the clause you have quoted does not say that it will, nor that it can.

[EddieSteadyGo]

Come on Fettler - we get your point that you think you *should* be able to sue for advice with regard to tax planning if it doesn't work out.

But now you are taking it a step further implying that you *can* claim, by citing some tenuous statements and examples.

Alpinestars in particular on here is an authority on this topic so it is pointless debating it further when you are challenging what is clearly established fact.

As a final point, don't you think the individuals affected (who will now be paying significantly more than if they had followed a more vanilla path) would be taking action if they thought there was a legal case they could pursue.

[johnfm]

V8 Fettler said:

johnfm said:

V8 Fettler said:

johnfm said:

RYH64E said:

johnfm said:

We carry PI cover for the same reason architects or engineers or accountants do. While professional services providers endeavour to provide services with good and reasonable care or with good industry practice (or whatever the threshold of the contract may be) there will be times when that service falls short and a client MAY have a cause of action. That's not to say that there is always a cause of action when advice doesn't prove to be correct.

Architects, engineers and accountants typically work to the letter and spirit of the relevant regulations and legislation, if something goes wrong it's because there's been a major cock up. If tax advisors worked in the same way the advice would be pretty much get an ISA, top up your pension, and pay tax on the rest...

This is the issue - tax advisos who design nd promote schemes are "working to the letter (but not the spirit) of the relevant regulations'. That is their entire raison d'etre - the regulations are (in places) vague or silent on certain approaches. So they design schemes using these approaches to reduce a taxpayer's liability to pay tax.

V8 is flogging a dead horse if he thinks that a service provider can give caveated advice, set out those caveats clearly and then get sued for losses arising from circumstances specifically set out in the caveats.

The caveats will most probably form part of the contract; as previously mentioned that contract can be amended by various means with or without the consent of the professional adviser e.g. by a regulatory body, adjudication or court action. Therefore the caveats do not provide absolute protection against being sued.

Not sure anybody has said 'caveats provide absolute protections against being sued'. You're being a bit 'dog with a bone' here. The caveats do form part of an engagement. Unless the caveats seeks to exclude liabilities that cannot be excluded under statute (losses due to fraud - lets ignore death or personal injury in this case, as it is unlikely) or they are unreasonable, UCTA wouldn't apply and a court is unlikely to rectify it in a dispute brought under breach of contract.

So it boils down to whether a caveat along the lines of "HMRC may review their position on this, the law may change or a court may decide that this scheme is naughty" is unreasonable. It doesn't seem on the face of it unreasonable.

Are we not therefore agreed that a caveat (contract clause) can be amended without the consent of the adviser by adjudication, regulatory body or court?

Why are you banging on about this? Are you trying to win some petty point on the internet about whether caveats could be the subject of proceedings? The caveats under discussion here are unlikely to be caught by UCTA nor are they likely to be so vague as to require the court to make the changes necessary to enable the contract to be understood, given the nature of the parties involved and the nature of the caveats.

If you want to make a point about whether tax advisor caveats are challengable and have been challenged, you need to look at the case law, rather than just doggedly claim these caveats can theoretically be overturned.

Edited by johnfm on Monday 12th December 12:15

[johnfm]

V8 Fettler said:

Alpinestars said:

V8 Fettler said:

Being wilful, I'm hardly likely to leaf through historical rulings at your behest.

Assuming you're based in England, does not your standard contract refer to "laws of England", "English law" or similar?

Examples please.

Example of a contract clause from a financial adviser's letter of engagement that recognises that the law has precedence over the contract:



AAT template letter of engagement

oh dear.

[anonymous-user]

EddieSteadyGo said:

As a final point, don't you think the individuals affected (who will now be paying significantly more than if they had followed a more vanilla path) would be taking action if they thought there was a legal case they could pursue.

Quite. I know at least a dozen people who have tried a number of these schemes. Some schemes worked some didnt. Net they lost a lot of money. Some individuals are several hundred k worse off than if they just paid the tax yet I don't know anyone who has sued the seller of the scheme let alone done so successfully.

[johnfm]

fblm said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

As a final point, don't you think the individuals affected (who will now be paying significantly more than if they had followed a more vanilla path) would be taking action if they thought there was a legal case they could pursue.

Quite. I know at least a dozen people who have tried a number of these schemes. Some schemes worked some didnt. Net they lost a lot of money. Some individuals are several hundred k worse off than if they just paid the tax yet I don't know anyone who has sued the seller of the scheme let alone done so successfully.

If there is even the slightest hint of a possible outcome, we'd all be getting colds calls a la PPI mis-selling.

But in this case, there is likely nobody to sue is there? I'd expect most of these tax scheme companies have taken the money, closed and re-opened under another corporate structure to ringfence such litigation risks.

[V8 Fettler]

Jobbo said:

V8 Fettler said:

You're part of the way there. A contract should state how disputes between the two parties are to be resolved. The AAT template letter of engagement states by default that an English court shall resolve any dispute i.e. English courts have jurisdiction; additionally, the AAT template states by default that English law shall be used to resolve the dispute i.e. English law governs the contract

Therefore, if one party decides that a contract clause is unreasonable then - for the default AAT template - an English court shall decide if that particular clause is unreasonable on the basis of English law. If the court decides that the particular clause is unreasonable then court can strike out that particular clause, the law having precedence over the contract.

Your second paragraph does not follow from the first.

That is a basic boilerplate clause stating that English law applies, which is just in case any random person tries to sue you in a different jurisdiction.

Generally, the law does not strike out clauses which are unreasonable. And the clause you have quoted does not say that it will, nor that it can.

The second paragraph is an example of how the clauses in the first paragraph enable a contract to be tested in a court of law.

Random person? Do you mean one of the parties to the contract? English law may apply as the governing law, but the jurisdiction could be regarded as outside of the UK, which is why a contract should state the jurisdiction e.g. English courts

[V8 Fettler]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Come on Fettler - we get your point that you think you *should* be able to sue for advice with regard to tax planning if it doesn't work out.

But now you are taking it a step further implying that you *can* claim, by citing some tenuous statements and examples.

Alpinestars in particular on here is an authority on this topic so it is pointless debating it further when you are challenging what is clearly established fact.

As a final point, don't you think the individuals affected (who will now be paying significantly more than if they had followed a more vanilla path) would be taking action if they thought there was a legal case they could pursue.

My view is that a letter of engagement is a contract (so why not call it a contract?) and as such it should be subjected to the same legal processes as any contract, including being tested in a court of law where the law has precedence over the contract. Other posters appear to hold the view that a letter of engagement is above the law

[V8 Fettler]

johnfm said:

V8 Fettler said:

johnfm said:

V8 Fettler said:

johnfm said:

RYH64E said:

johnfm said:

We carry PI cover for the same reason architects or engineers or accountants do. While professional services providers endeavour to provide services with good and reasonable care or with good industry practice (or whatever the threshold of the contract may be) there will be times when that service falls short and a client MAY have a cause of action. That's not to say that there is always a cause of action when advice doesn't prove to be correct.

Architects, engineers and accountants typically work to the letter and spirit of the relevant regulations and legislation, if something goes wrong it's because there's been a major cock up. If tax advisors worked in the same way the advice would be pretty much get an ISA, top up your pension, and pay tax on the rest...

This is the issue - tax advisos who design nd promote schemes are "working to the letter (but not the spirit) of the relevant regulations'. That is their entire raison d'etre - the regulations are (in places) vague or silent on certain approaches. So they design schemes using these approaches to reduce a taxpayer's liability to pay tax.

V8 is flogging a dead horse if he thinks that a service provider can give caveated advice, set out those caveats clearly and then get sued for losses arising from circumstances specifically set out in the caveats.

The caveats will most probably form part of the contract; as previously mentioned that contract can be amended by various means with or without the consent of the professional adviser e.g. by a regulatory body, adjudication or court action. Therefore the caveats do not provide absolute protection against being sued.

Not sure anybody has said 'caveats provide absolute protections against being sued'. You're being a bit 'dog with a bone' here. The caveats do form part of an engagement. Unless the caveats seeks to exclude liabilities that cannot be excluded under statute (losses due to fraud - lets ignore death or personal injury in this case, as it is unlikely) or they are unreasonable, UCTA wouldn't apply and a court is unlikely to rectify it in a dispute brought under breach of contract.

So it boils down to whether a caveat along the lines of "HMRC may review their position on this, the law may change or a court may decide that this scheme is naughty" is unreasonable. It doesn't seem on the face of it unreasonable.

Are we not therefore agreed that a caveat (contract clause) can be amended without the consent of the adviser by adjudication, regulatory body or court?

Why are you banging on about this? Are you trying to win some petty point on the internet about whether caveats could be the subject of proceedings? The caveats under discussion here are unlikely to be caught by UCTA nor are they likely to be so vague as to require the court to make the changes necessary to enable the contract to be understood, given the nature of the parties involved and the nature of the caveats.

If you want to make a point about whether tax advisor caveats are challengable and have been challenged, you need to look at the case law, rather than just doggedly claim these caveats can theoretically be overturned.

Edited by johnfm on Monday 12th December 12:15

It should be possible to test a contract (letter of engagement) between a financial adviser and a client in a court of law where the law has precedence over the contract, just as the law has precedence over other contracts. Do you not agree with that?

[V8 Fettler]

johnfm said:

fblm said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

As a final point, don't you think the individuals affected (who will now be paying significantly more than if they had followed a more vanilla path) would be taking action if they thought there was a legal case they could pursue.

Quite. I know at least a dozen people who have tried a number of these schemes. Some schemes worked some didnt. Net they lost a lot of money. Some individuals are several hundred k worse off than if they just paid the tax yet I don't know anyone who has sued the seller of the scheme let alone done so successfully.

If there is even the slightest hint of a possible outcome, we'd all be getting colds calls a la PPI mis-selling.

But in this case, there is likely nobody to sue is there? I'd expect most of these tax scheme companies have taken the money, closed and re-opened under another corporate structure to ringfence such litigation risks.

Which is why it's important that the client requires the financial adviser to provide PI cover

[BlackLabel]

Karen Millen, the fashion designer who founded the upmarket high street brand, has been declared bankrupt over unpaid tax. Miss Millen, who opened her first shop almost 35 years ago, failed to pay £6million to HM Revenue and Customs over her involvement in a tax avoidance scheme.

[PurpleMoonlight]

BlackLabel said:

Karen Millen, the fashion designer who founded the upmarket high street brand, has been declared bankrupt over unpaid tax. Miss Millen, who opened her first shop almost 35 years ago, failed to pay £6million to HM Revenue and Customs over her involvement in a tax avoidance scheme.

If people just paid their dues they wouldn't get into this situation.

[Kermit power]

BlackLabel said:

Karen Millen, the fashion designer who founded the upmarket high street brand, has been declared bankrupt over unpaid tax. Miss Millen, who opened her first shop almost 35 years ago, failed to pay £6million to HM Revenue and Customs over her involvement in a tax avoidance scheme.

Oh dear, boo hoo. Greedy person with more than enough to live out the rest of her life in complete comfort gets greedy, enters a scheme which simply has to look dodgy as fk and gets her just desserts. Zero sympathy here.

I just noticed the title of the thread as well. I don't see that she's being deliberately bankrupted? If she'd had enough to pay her tax bill, then she wouldn't have been bankrupted.

[BlackLabel]

"Celebrities including David Beckham, Gary Lineker and Ant and Dec have lost a legal challenge over a £700million tax bill."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4561410/Ce...

[romeogolf]

Alpinestars said:

Off topic, but if two tins were purchased you would pay £1.80. The label says "Any two" which implies a range of products were on the offer, some of which may cost more than £1 which would mean a discount on a multiple-product purchase. Agreed that it's not clear, though ;-)

[PurpleTurtle]

BlackLabel said:

"Celebrities including David Beckham, Gary Lineker and Ant and Dec have lost a legal challenge over a £700million tax bill."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4561410/Ce...

A spokesman for Ingenious said:

"we will be appealing the ruling.

Not over yet, perhaps.

[Get Karter]

Bob Geldof mentioned as one of the 'tax avoiders' in this scheme too, according to BBC News website.

I never realised he was in the same wealth bracket as the others mentioned. Thought his music career was short and unspectacular....