View more on these topics

FSCS reviews film partnership advice claims

Tax-Corporate-Calculator-Business-Finance-700x450.jpg

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has begun reviewing “complex” tax dodging claims against advisers.

The lifeboat fund says it has received a number of compensation claims in relation to advice to invest in schemes linked to investments such as film partnerships or environmental plans.

Because the arrangements were primarily unregulated collective investment schemes, the FSCS says it can consider claims for compensation against advisers that are no longer trading.

The FSCS has not disclosed the size of the claims it is considering or the number of potential claimants.

It says: “As these claims involve complex legal issues relating to the liability of financial advisers, we have taken external legal advice to help us assess these claims.

“As a result of this advice we can now start reviewing individual claims. We know that some claimants have been waiting a long time and we apologise for how long it has taken us to resolve these complicated issues.”

Recommended

8

Govt attacked over ‘crucial’ missing Pension Wise data

The Pensions Policy Institute and the Financial Services Consumer Panel have slammed the lack of information available on the performance of Pension Wise since its launch in April. Addressing the Work and Pensions select committee yesterday, FSCP member Teresa Fritz and PPI director Chris Curry both said a lack of information is making it impossible […]

1

Tony Wickenden: HMRC fends off legal challenge on tax avoidance

There has been another interesting and important development in relation to HM Revenue and Customs’ relentless drive to close the tax gap. Of course, it is in the area of tax avoidance: specifically, the part of its strategy that sees it getting the tax “early” from those who have entered into what it believes to […]

Hector-Sants-speaking-in-2012.jpg
22

Sir Hector Sants joins Financial Capability Board

Former FSA chief executive Sir Hector Sants has joined a Financial Capability Board facilitated by the Money Advice Service. Part of the MAS’s remit from the Government is to work in partnership with other organisations to develop a financial capability strategy for the UK which aims to improve consumers’ money habits. The board was set up […]

2015: a divergence in economic policy?

As the US continues to confound growth expectations and the eurozone’s ‘will they, won’t they’ saga has finally concluded, what are the implications for global markets? James Dowey, Neptune’s chief economist, puts forward his outlook for 2015 and the key considerations for investors.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The irony of it all! The fact that as the ‘arrangements were primarily unregulated collective investment schemes’ should immediately exclude it from regulatory compensation of any kind. These wealthier than average clients entered into the arrangements for what reason exactly? The very thing that we are being told is morally corrupt – pure tax avoidance. And when it goes wrong i.e. you get found out, you can get your money back from those that wouldn’t have tried to defraud the country. Those individuals should seek a civil action against the perpetrators like anyone else would have to do in the world of unregulated stuff. I must be very thick indeed. It’s so blindingly oblivious – isn’t it?

  2. I have been having an issue with a holiday booking company. Do you think the FSCS might wade in there with some assistance. After all, their remit seems to be straying further and further away from their ‘core market’

  3. What is the message we keep hearing from the regulators, FOS, et al ….. You have nothing to fear if you do nothing wrong !

    This may need a rethink !

  4. Compliance Thought 10th September 2015 at 1:42 pm

    The article states the claims are against regulated advisers and therefore it follows that the costs will fall onto the adviser fee bracket.

    As it is the industry that funds the levy, suely we should have access to the legal opinion they have recieved, and ,ore importantly, what questions they were asked. How about MM obtaining this under an FOI request.

  5. Fuck right off. I will kick the biggest fuss ever if I am levied for these twats.

Leave a comment