Adviser Q&A with Simon Garrett of CMS Cameron McKenna
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has recommended that five investors in a film tax avoidance scheme should be awarded £2.6m following a claim against their advisers 20Twenty Independent Ltd. The scheme involved an investment in Cross Film Partnerships which is a film production company.
Why did FOS rule in favour of the investors?
The FOS ruled in favour of the investors as it stated that the advice given was unsuitable and the potential risks involved in the investment were not fully explained. The claims management company which represented the investors stated that the advisers failed to make the investors aware of the high level of risks inherent in the scheme – including the fact that the loans forming part of the scheme were full recourse to the investor (which typically means that the lender has the right to take any...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
Home >Articles > FOS rules in favour of investors in tax scheme
FOS rules in favour of investors in tax scheme
Adviser Q&A with Simon Garrett of CMS Cameron McKenna
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has recommended that five investors in a film tax avoidance scheme should be awarded £2.6m following a claim against their advisers 20Twenty Independent Ltd. The scheme involved an investment in Cross Film Partnerships which is a film production company.
Why did FOS rule in favour of the investors?
The FOS ruled in favour of the investors as it stated that the advice given was unsuitable and the potential risks involved in the investment were not fully explained. The claims management company which represented the investors stated that the advisers failed to make the investors aware of the high level of risks inherent in the scheme – including the fact that the loans forming part of the scheme were full recourse to the investor (which typically means that the lender has the right to take any...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
