Talent Resource Management

[zohan]

I have received the funds this morning and my statement says they came from Talent Resource Management not Redding but that probably has no significant meaning.

Thats good news for now. Hope TRM is not holding our funds.

We all anyway know that we have signed a original loan letter and are at risk that can be called-in at any furture date.

I feel the way forward is to make sure that we get a letter from TRM stating that they(TRM or Redding or their companies) will not request the loans to be paid and if asked we can use this letter against them.

To me, this is the only option to be safe from HRMC and TRM. Any other suggestions ???

[dezze]

I feel the way forward is to make sure that we get a letter from TRM stating that they(TRM or Redding or their companies) will not request the loans to be paid and if asked we can use this letter against them.

To me, this is the only option to be safe from HRMC and TRM. Any other suggestions ???

I'm no legal expert, but wouldn't HMRC then view this as income rather than a loan? I'd be surprised if TRM/Redding supply such a letter as this would surely open themselves (as well as the employees) to a rodgering?

[ASB]

I feel the way forward is to make sure that we get a letter from TRM stating that they(TRM or Redding or their companies) will not request the loans to be paid and if asked we can use this letter against them.

Then it isn't a loan. Pretty unsafe from HMRC.

[Lewis]

I feel the way forward is to make sure that we get a letter from TRM stating that they(TRM or Redding or their companies) will not request the loans to be paid and if asked we can use this letter against them.

To me, this is the only option to be safe from HRMC and TRM. Any other suggestions ???

A loan with lots of associated documentation stating it never needs to be repaid is in my opinion (and likely HMRC's) not a loan.

To the best of my knowledge the only way these schemes can work is if the loans appear legitimate. That means loan agreements without letters stating the loans never need to be repaid. That way you can argue your case in court. My guess is that HMRC's prime argument if they challenge the scheme will be that the loans are not real loans. What better way to prove that than show a letter that states that! I don't think you should give HMRC that ammunition.

I would consider the letter you suggest very dangerous. It is verging on confirming you are committing tax evasion as it proves the loan is a sham and the whole scheme a artificial mechanism to avoid tax. I am convinced such a letter would be a nail in the coffin of the scheme.

And how would you use it against TRM? How could you realistically go to a court and say "we were just pretending this was a loan to avoid tax". The judge is hardly going to say "oh right, sure ok then forget it". They will ask why you never declared the money if it wasn't a real loan as you now say.

I think you need to get you head around the fact that you cannot have any guarantees. If you do the scheme is a sham.

[zohan]

A loan with lots of associated documentation stating it never needs to be repaid is in my opinion (and likely HMRC's) not a loan.

To the best of my knowledge the only way these schemes can work is if the loans appear legitimate. That means loan agreements without letters stating the loans never need to be repaid. That way you can argue your case in court. My guess is that HMRC's prime argument if they challenge the scheme will be that the loans are not real loans. What better way to prove that than show a letter that states that! I don't think you should give HMRC that ammunition.

I would consider the letter you suggest very dangerous. It is verging on confirming you are committing tax evasion as it proves the loan is a sham and the whole scheme a artificial mechanism to avoid tax. I am convinced such a letter would be a nail in the coffin of the scheme.

And how would you use it against TRM? How could you realistically go to a court and say "we were just pretending this was a loan to avoid tax". The judge is hardly going to say "oh right, sure ok then forget it". They will ask why you never declared the money if it wasn't a real loan as you now say.

I think you need to get you head around the fact that you cannot have any guarantees. If you do the scheme is a sham.

Thats a good point. Why dont we ask TRM or Redding to make the Re-payment period to about 100-150 years rather than the current 10 yrs in the Redding Letter.

I also read a few previous posts stating that there are other similar schemes and are run by a trust with a re-payment period more than 100 yrs. Would this be an option ?

[Lewis]

I also read a few previous posts stating that there are other similar schemes and are run by a trust with a re-payment period more than 100 yrs. Would this be an option ?

I am pretty sure most loan schemes use off-shore trusts (e.g. an employee benefit trust). This seems MUCH safer to me than loans from companies as trusts can have rules of conduct, e.g. it has to act in the interests of the beneficiaries (and calling in the loans would not). My guess is a company has no such rules and therfore has more power over how to administer the loans (and maybe call them in). But that really is a guess.

I agree with your ideas, I would look for a solution where the loans are legitimate but structured in such a way that you can sleep at night (e.g. managed via a trust that you (forgive the pun) trust or can't be called in for 100 years). Plus I would leave the scheme at the soonest opportunity. I would even investigate cutting my losses and getting the loans formally written off and paying tax on that as a benefit as an end to the matter. Again, I have no idea how writing off loans works.

[ratewhore]

A loan with lots of associated documentation stating it never needs to be repaid is in my opinion (and likely HMRC's) not a loan.

To the best of my knowledge the only way these schemes can work is if the loans appear legitimate. That means loan agreements without letters stating the loans never need to be repaid. That way you can argue your case in court. My guess is that HMRC's prime argument if they challenge the scheme will be that the loans are not real loans. What better way to prove that than show a letter that states that! I don't think you should give HMRC that ammunition.

I would consider the letter you suggest very dangerous. It is verging on confirming you are committing tax evasion as it proves the loan is a sham and the whole scheme a artificial mechanism to avoid tax. I am convinced such a letter would be a nail in the coffin of the scheme.

And how would you use it against TRM? How could you realistically go to a court and say "we were just pretending this was a loan to avoid tax". The judge is hardly going to say "oh right, sure ok then forget it". They will ask why you never declared the money if it wasn't a real loan as you now say.

I think you need to get you head around the fact that you cannot have any guarantees. If you do the scheme is a sham.

WHS.

You either owe the taxman or you may one day have to repay the loan, regardless of who is administering it. I don't think your position has changed all that much.

All imho of course...

[zohan]

Plus I would leave the scheme at the soonest opportunity. I would even investigate cutting my losses and getting the loans formally written off and paying tax on that as a benefit as an end to the matter. Again, I have no idea how writing off loans works.

If we are able to write-off the loans legally and be safe from TRM and HMRC, then terminating the contract with TRM at the earliest is a good move. This would put an end to all the problems in the future...

[malvolio]

I am pretty sure most loan schemes use off-shore trusts (e.g. an employee benefit trust). This seems MUCH safer to me than loans from companies as trusts can have rules of conduct, e.g. it has to act in the interests of the beneficiaries (and calling in the loans would not).

Point of order - EBTs are illegal now, aren't they?

[ChimpMaster]

Point of order - EBTs are illegal now, aren't they?

I thought they are illegal for new entrants, but those already using them before the law came in (2003?) can continue to remain in the EBT schemes.