Montpelier & Newquay 10% loan repayment demands

[TheLastWinja]

Yes, I have found that too.

[Kais]

PM me

I am also wondering what had actually been achieved. How do I get PM access?

[Loan Ranger]

Montpelier at it again

Sending out new letters again suggesting people repay 10% to make the loans look like real loans.

Nothing on how this helps with the loan charge.

Apparently, people who had previously repaid 10% in 2016 haven't been able to get the money back. All requests have been refused.

If you have already repaid, or are going to, it's probably best to treat is as a gift to WG & co.

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

Sending out new letters again suggesting people repay 10% to make the loans look like real loans.

Nothing on how this helps with the loan charge.

Apparently, people who had previously repaid 10% in 2016 haven't been able to get the money back. All requests have been refused.

If you have already repaid, or are going to, it's probably best to treat is as a gift to WG & co.

got to feel sorry for the 8 people that voted in this poll the first time round !

[Colfeian]

Cant get hold of Corrance, Montpelier

i have received my settlement disclosure paperwork from HMRC, and wanted to contact Corrance/Montpelier, re my payments while i was employed by Newquay.
cant get hold of them - emails bounce, websites are down.
anybody else had any joy getting hold of them and getting any details from them?

[ponder]

i have received my settlement disclosure paperwork from HMRC, and wanted to contact Corrance/Montpelier, re my payments while i was employed by Newquay.
cant get hold of them - emails bounce, websites are down.
anybody else had any joy getting hold of them and getting any details from them?

Sorry, can't help with Montpelier but was wondering if you mind me asking what their timelines for settlement might be, if any?

[Colfeian]

Sorry, can't help with Montpelier but was wondering if you mind me asking what their timelines for settlement might be, if any?

30th September 2018 for submission.
they are saying settlement figure would be sent by April 2019

[GreenMirror]

i have received my settlement disclosure paperwork from HMRC, and wanted to contact Corrance/Montpelier, re my payments while i was employed by Newquay.
cant get hold of them - emails bounce, websites are down.
anybody else had any joy getting hold of them and getting any details from them?

If you PM me I might be able to help.

[QUODM]

why would Montpelier keep your money?

I know this is old but someone posted something on this forum and it came back in my head.

I can understand the arg that having repaid part of a loan back it looks more like a loan than a untaxed earning. Given 10 year demands on IHT for trusts and the fact their loans had no interest, they need to do something to get the loans marked as bona fide loans. Demanding payment seems reasonable (as this is one of HMRCs args in the rangers case that ultimately won it - the side letters that said they would never have to repay these loans back). MP has demanded loan repayments - not therefore possible to issue an FN based on Rangers (if it wasn't out of time anyway...) ?

However I don't understand the vitrol on this that you will never get the money back from MP if you pay?
At the moment the scheme providers seem to have gotten off scott free. There is no real law that gets them and what they did was legal at the time and the Loan Charge is passing this missed tax cost onto users, not the providers.
At this point if MP weren't trying to help, they would just say scrw you to the users and quit, we would get taxed (retrospectively), they are still rich and we're all done.
These are discretionary trusts though and the trustee is bound to act in the beneficiaries best interests and is not allowed to have any interest in the money in the trust. If MP took this cash from an illegal demand and kept it and spent it themselves, doesn't this become a breach of trust law and simple fraud?
The difference here is that MP have made loads of money and the loan charge is our problem if it fails but if they take the money illegally and break constraints of the trust, it becomes fraud which comes with a prison sentence? Why would they? Whats your rational other than "I don't trust them" ?

The law (which is being subverted for LC2019 ) is still the law. Why do you think it wouldn't apply to MP if fraud was involved? If anyone has asked for the money back, can they explain on what grounds they were refused it?

[GammaMadrid]

I know this is old but someone posted something on this forum and it came back in my head.

I can understand the arg that having repaid part of a loan back it looks more like a loan than a untaxed earning. Given 10 year demands on IHT for trusts and the fact their loans had no interest, they need to do something to get the loans marked as bona fide loans. Demanding payment seems reasonable (as this is one of HMRCs args in the rangers case that ultimately won it - the side letters that said they would never have to repay these loans back). MP has demanded loan repayments - not therefore possible to issue an FN based on Rangers (if it wasn't out of time anyway...) ?

However I don't understand the vitrol on this that you will never get the money back from MP if you pay?
At the moment the scheme providers seem to have gotten off scott free. There is no real law that gets them and what they did was legal at the time and the Loan Charge is passing this missed tax cost onto users, not the providers.
At this point if MP weren't trying to help, they would just say scrw you to the users and quit, we would get taxed (retrospectively), they are still rich and we're all done.
These are discretionary trusts though and the trustee is bound to act in the beneficiaries best interests and is not allowed to have any interest in the money in the trust. If MP took this cash from an illegal demand and kept it and spent it themselves, doesn't this become a breach of trust law and simple fraud?
The difference here is that MP have made loads of money and the loan charge is our problem if it fails but if they take the money illegally and break constraints of the trust, it becomes fraud which comes with a prison sentence? Why would they? Whats your rational other than "I don't trust them" ?

The law (which is being subverted for LC2019 ) is still the law. Why do you think it wouldn't apply to MP if fraud was involved? If anyone has asked for the money back, can they explain on what grounds they were refused it?

One of the people who paid 10% did ask for it back. And did not get it.

Bearing in mind HMRC have done nothing against promoters so far, there is no way they will get involved in any technical breach. You may think it is fraud - others will not. In fact, many will consider it just desserts(quite wrongly).

MP have made alot of money. How much is left? Could it be nothing?

Kicking the can down the round and hoping something turns up is great. It did for NTRT. However MP were very much against NTRT taking the strategy they did - as it contradicted Huitson. In the end Huitson was lost(failure to submit UTTT on time).

Generally it is agreed on CUK that any solution provided by a promoter will only make things worse. Most with a Loan Charge go to Graham or Phil.

Of course, everyone should make their own decision. Maybe those paying back the 10% will get the best solution? And maybe I will win the lottery next week.