You are here: Home - Insurance - News -

Advisers accused of ‘knowing perfectly well’ Icebreaker was tax dodge

Written by:
Advisers who introduced clients to the Icebreaker scheme - in which members of Take That were invested - knew its sole aim was to enable tax avoidance, lawyers for an insurance company have claimed.

Icebreaker was a tax avoidance scheme that created tax losses out of nothing for wealthy people – members of  Take That included – which the government said could have cost the taxpayer £120m.

Members of the scheme – which was devised by Caroline Hamilton – claimed to be active partners trading in the creative industries, selling, for example, the rights to a song or an idea for a book.

They claimed tax relief on greater losses than they invested in the partnerships. The return on the partners’ ‘investment’ was the tax relief, which was considerably larger than their cash contribution.

The scheme was rejected by a tax tribunal in May after a case was brought against it by HMRC.

‘Investors’ in Icebreaker are now turning to insurance company Enterprise to pay out on policies it provided in respect of “losses or shortfalls” incurred by those who invested in the scheme.

However Enterprise is refusing to honour the insurance policies, on the grounds that it was deceived by Hamilton and her colleagues into believing that Icebreaker was a genuine investment vehicle, rather than an elaborate scheme designed solely to avoid tax.

In a letter from Ozon Solicitors, which acts on behalf of Enterprise, to one such Icebreaker ‘investor’, the law firm, citing the Tribunal ruling, states that: ‘Participants and their advisors [sic] as well as Ms Hamilton and her colleagues “knew perfectly well” that the gross capital contributions were a “pretence”.’

The letter continues: ‘Given that, in truth, the Icebreaker scheme was designed to make a loss (rather than a profit) as a means of conferring a tax benefit upon participants, it was virtually certain that a loss would be suffered immediately when cover was incepted.

‘Enterprise approached the risk that it was to cover based on…the proposition (albeit mistaken) that the full capital contribution would be invested by participants, and that the proceeds thereof would genuinely be used with a view to profitable trade.

‘Participants misrepresented the facts relating to the circumstances concerning their purported investment and the purpose of their participation in Icebreaker.

‘Enterprise considers that there is no cover under the policy for claims in respect of “losses or shortfalls” incurred by individual “investors”‘.

Tag Box

There are 0 Comment(s)

If you wish to comment without signing in, click your cursor in the top box and tick the 'Sign in as a guest' box at the bottom.

Could you save money with a social broadband tariff?

Two-thirds of low-income households are unaware they could be saving on broadband, according to Uswitch.

How to help others and donate to food banks this winter

This winter is expected to be the most challenging yet for the food bank network as soaring costs push more pe...

Your rights for refunds if travel is affected by strikes

There have been a wave of strikes this year across many different industries, and more are planned over Christ...

What will happen if rates change

How your finances will be impacted by a rise in interest rates.

Regular Savings Calculator

Small regular contributions can build up nicely over time.

Online Savings Calculator

Work out how your online savings can build over time.

DIY investors: 10 common mistakes to avoid

For those without the help and experience of an adviser, here are 10 common DIY investor mistakes to avoid.

Mortgage down-valuations: Tips to avoid pulling out of a house sale

Down-valuations are on the rise. So, what does it mean for home buyers, and what can you do?

Five tips for surviving a bear market mauling

The S&P 500 has slipped into bear market territory and for UK investors, the FTSE 250 is also on the edge. Her...

Money Tips of the Week