The ex-footballers are among 122 investors who took part in the scheme between 2000 and 2013, reports The Brief, a supplement of newspaper The Times.
The law firm representing the claimants, Peters & Peters, has refused to name its clients, although previous reports have linked David Beckham, Wayne Rooney and Gary Lineker to Ingenious.
The suit alleges that the investors face significant tax liabilities as a result of the schemes being sold negligently.
Peters & Peters has issued proceedings against the Ingenious group and three of its directors, including its founder Patrick McKenna.
“Until 2013, the tax avoidance industry was rampant in this practice and Ingenious, together with their appointed QCs, were at the top of the food chain."
The law firm also confirmed that claims are being brought against professional agents and financial advisers who sold, recommended or marketed the investments, as well as several banks that financed the deals.
Buyer beware
“Caveat emptor – a fool and their money…” said Miles Dean, managing partner of Milestone International Tax.
“It is highly likely that all investors will have signed waivers so the burden of proof will be very high,” he cautioned.
Dean explained that the most common reason for “investment” schemes failing foul of the tax courts is that the investment element is secondary and the tax benefits primary.
“The scheme providers will argue differently, but the ‘investments’ were not really investments. They were designed to create losses (an investment usually produces a return) against which income could be offset; neither the agent, the IFA nor the footballer would fully understand the scheme they were participating in, other than believing it would reduce their tax bill.
“Until 2013, the tax avoidance industry was rampant in this practice and Ingenious, together with their appointed QCs, were at the top of the food chain.
“Football is rife with greed and corruption from FIFA downwards. The problem is that most footballers tend to have very limited knowledge of tax law, not least very complex tax driven schemes, and their agents are no better.
“It is likely that many of the IFAs selling the schemes wouldn’t fully understand the complexities of the arrangements at hand,” he said.
Facing bankruptcy
Jonathan Tickner, a Peters & Peters partner, said: “The investors have all suffered significant financial losses as a result of these schemes being mis-sold to them as legitimate opportunities in which to invest in film or other media businesses. They were misinformed that the tax reliefs had been approved by HMRC and were permitted by law.
“This is particularly hard for sporting professionals whose earning potential is at its peak for only a few years. A number of those affected are now facing bankruptcy.”
HMRC case
HM Revenue and Customs won a case against Ingenious Film Partners in August 2016 claiming that the scheme it promoted artificially created losses through investments in films so investors could claim tax relief.
The court found that the schemes were not legitimate investments but a way for investors to avoid paying tax.
It ruled that investors should only receive tax relief on 30% of their investment, not 100%, resulting in the £700m ($903m, €760m) tax bill.
