Circular was informative
WITH reference to an article (Business Post, May 6) headlined ''Advisers say circular is misleading'', I believe it is necessary for me to reply.
While one could argue that our circular could have been worded differently there is absolutely no doubt that the message being given is true. As a member of the European Union, the British Inland Revenue is banned from operating a system of compulsory vetting of policy wording, that is, pre-certifying qualifying policies. This means that legislation must change and the first opportunity arises in the November budget.
In answer to specific comments made I would like to add: Within the personal financial services industry it has always been accepted that when you speak of a 10-year tax-free policy you are talking in terms of the income generated after maturity and not the investment funds during the life of the policy. It is fairly common knowledge that onshore funds suffer taxation at source.
I have worked in this industry for some 12 years and have never knowingly done anything unethical. I consider that an important part of my job is to provide information to clients which is what I have done - people can choose to listen or not, that is their choice.
The facts speak for themselves. There will be legislative changes which will affect the taxation of offshore policies. Whichever way you look at it, this means that this is the last chance to take advantage of the existing tax breaks and all I have done is to inform people. What is the harm in that? BOB PAINTER Consultant Medcalf
