Get the stories that matter to you sent straight to your inbox with our daily newsletter. Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

BRA tycoon-turned-Tory business czar Michelle Mone has come under attack over her company’s use of tax avoidance schemes.

The lingerie entrepeneur’s firm used employee benefit trusts (EBTs) topping £500,000 before it began taking heavy losses.

The schemes – which landed Rangers in court – have previously been branded “morally repugnant” by Chancellor George Osborne.

Directors at bra firm MJM International also owed more than £800,000 to a so-called loan account that covered their expenses.

And in 2013, auditors could only give a “limited” report after they were not given enough information regarding a £135,000 transaction at the company.

Tonight the 43-year-old hit back at her critics on Twitter posting: "You won't break me."

The revelations come just days after the Tories unveiled Mone as the poster girl spearheading a review aiming to boost the number of small companies in Scotland’s deprived communties.

Mone has also claimed David Cameron is to give her a peerage.

Today critics slammed the move to appoint the businesswoman to the review.

Labour MSP Neil Findlay said: “You can see why Michelle Mone has become the poster girl for the Tories.

“Her use of tax avoiding EBTs and enjoyment of lavish expense and company loan accounts shows how out of touch she and her Tory pals are with the rest of us.”

More than £500,000 was paid into the EBTs in 2010 and 2011, according to documents filed at Companies House.

Mone and her former husband Michael, both directors, were the trustees of the fund.

In the same year, the “directors’ loan account” reached an eye-watering £862,000 – apparently to cover expenses.

Then, in December 2013, auditors could only give a “qualified opinion” on the company’s accounts – meaning they were unable to provide a “clean report”.

By this time, Sri Lankan investors MAS Holdings had taken a controlling stake in Ultimo Brands – the parent firm of MJM International.

During the audit, accountants drew attention to a transaction for £135,000.

The report said: “With respect to one related party balance included within amounts owed to related undertakings of £135,000, the audit evidence available to us was limited because no confirmation of the related party balance was provided.”

Accountancy insiders said it means information about the sum was possibly not made available. They added that firms would always seek to avoid a “qualified decision”.

Auditors Scott-Moncrieff refused to comment on whether the sum was a payment to MJM or a debt.

But they said: “An auditor’s report can be qualified when there is either a limitation of scope in the auditor’s work, or when there is a disagreement with management regarding application, or adequacy of accounting policies.

“A qualified audit report does not reflect the financial health of the business, and it does not mean that the financial statements are not transparent.

“It merely reflects the auditor’s inability to give a clean report.”

Meanwhile, company accounts show that directors including the Mones enjoyed a large loan account.

Records state that it was “for expenses paid on behalf of the directors”.

In 2007 and 2008, accounts show that directors owed MJM International more than £210,000 each year.

Directors used their annual shareholder dividends – both slightly more than the owed amounts – to cover the costs.

But after 2009, directors of the firm stopped receiving dividends, as the loan account crept up to £473,170.

Accounts for the same year state that an amount of £250,000 was paid back the following year.

But in 2010, the use of the controversial EBTs came into play.

Documents state that MJM paid £250,100 into the trust. A further £250,000 was pumped into the trust the following year.

At the same time, the directors’ loan account spiralled to a maximum of £862,993 and sat at an eye-watering £680,469 at the end of the financial year.

The same accounts summary states that a further £250,000 was paid towards the expenses “post-year”.

It is not clear whether the £500,000 paid to EBTs is the same £500,000 paid back to the loan account.

By October 2012, the loan account sat at £790,020. But documents filed state that directors repaid more than £788,000 before clearing the amount the following year.

In 2013, estranged husband Michael resigned from the company on the same day that Sri Lankan businessman Ajaykumar Amalean was appointed in his place.

The firm suffered retained losses of £780,000 in 2013 before passing its assets to a new parent company, Ultimo Brands, which also made a loss.

Mone has previously claimed to have personal wealth of at least £20million.

And news reports from 2013 suggested that the 43-year-old had bought out her husband with £24million.

But a friend of the couple dismissed the story as “untrue”.

Ultimo accounts showed shareholder funds of just over £3million at the end of that year – after MAS Holdings took over.

Mone in 2014 said she had sold 80 per cent of Ultimo Brands.

Former director Scott Kilday won a tribunal against the firm last year for unfair dismissal.

He walked out after he found a listening device in his office.

Fellow entrepeneur Douglas Anderson of GAP Group cast doubt over her latest appointment by the Tories, saying the No supporter would be “divisive” to pro-Yes campaigners.

He said: “There is no way she is qualified to advise anybody on setting up a profitable business, because, quite simply, she hasn’t.”

Neil Findlay MSP continued: “The financial machinations at the company when she was at the helm really calls into question her credentials as someone carrying out a Government review into business start-ups.

“What is she going to advise young budding entrepreneurs? How to avoid tax, live outside your means and submit partial accounts?

“That’s not exactly a good message for new businesses.”

The Record asked Mone whether EBTs were used to pay the directors’ loan account.

We also asked whether the sum of £135,000 related to her husband’s send-off, as opposed to the reported £24million.

Her spokesman said her tax affairs were “handled in full compliance with the law”.

He added: “Other than this there is nothing to add on what are private matters.”