Mainly to draw a line under the whole thing. However, if they insist on charging exorbitant fees to do it, I'll be doing exactly as you say.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Trust Fees for settling loans
Collapse
X
-
-
If you're paying tax on it, it isn't a loan
The thread below is helpful here:-
https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...letter-66.html
I had PTS Settlements ask me for £250 just to provide me with my loan amounts - I refused and sent them a demand for all of my personal information to be provided free of charge within one month under the new data protection law, the GDPR. Failure to comply will mean a report to the office f the Information Commissioner.
I would say do not consider paying these people (AML / Knox / Principal, PTS / Vanquish, et al) another penny, ever!Comment
-
Originally posted by Albert49 View PostCan I ask why you feel the need to settle/waive/close the loan ? It is not a requirement of HMRC that you have the loan settled, as others have said it is simply an attempt by the scheme arrangers to extract more money, if they really thought that the loan could be recalled, would they be settling for 5% of the loan value ? I would suggest better to keep your money and if they do ever try and recall the loan in he future use it for the lawyers fees.
https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...f-loans-2.htmlComment
-
For clarity.
HMRC do and can not insist on the loan being written off or otherwise released.
They have moved (In April 2017) to make a loan release or write off a taxable event. They also insist that a commercial situation in which the loan is repaid and the funds distributed in accordance with an agreement written long ago, might be "avoidance" for the purposes of the loan charge.
So there are some features that mean that the loan write off might attract another tax or at least the prospect of a long fight with HMRC to get them to see sense.
Perhaps the key reason for the need to remove the obligation to repay is where the loans end up in unfriendly hands. There have been a few instances of this and whilst I would hesitate to say that they are actively unfriendly, but certainly they are looking to make money by making some dubious claims.
It may be, as suggested, that you don't pay anybody anything and save your money for some form of legal resistance.
Be aware however that HMRC claim that the loan - if held by a trust - may attract some IHT either on settlement or later.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Is it right to say that the IHT charge is on the trust and therefore in their interest for you to settle this directly with hmrc?Comment
-
Originally posted by RickG View PostIs it right to say that the IHT charge is on the trust and therefore in their interest for you to settle this directly with hmrc?
Even if it were, that can cause some issues.
For example, if the trust has 100 loans and an IHT charge arises of say £1,000, how do they pay it?
If they try to collect £10 from each loan, chances are that they will not be able to. Some people may have disappeared, some will not be able to pay, some will not pay.
Does the trustee then go after those who are willing to pay for more than £10?
I have no idea what the legal ramifications of that might be.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Slightly off on a tangent here, but I was told that a trustee has to act in the best interests of the beneficiary. Therefore recalling the loan is going against that principle.
With regards to IHT, surely a beneficiary has no obligation to pay any fees related to a trust. It must be the original company which setup / engaged the trust which is liable for fees. Assuming that company still exists, of course. I don't see how the trust can make a beneficiary liable for anything. Except to recall the loan (which then violates their obligation in my first paragraph).
I don't expect an answer to any of the above. I understand trust law is very complicated and probably requires some legal expertise to answer.Comment
-
Loan
Many of the loan agreements have a transferability clause, meaning the lender (the trust) may assign the loan to another party. If this is NOT a trust, can that party demand repayment?
Also, Webberg, in your reply above you mention the loan and HMRC - however once a person has settled, would HMRC no longer regard it as a loan? If it is still a loan, there should be no tax due on it, and if is is Disguised Remuneration, then it is not a loan.Comment
-
Originally posted by Dmac View PostMany of the loan agreements have a transferability clause, meaning the lender (the trust) may assign the loan to another party. If this is NOT a trust, can that party demand repayment?
Also, Webberg, in your reply above you mention the loan and HMRC - however once a person has settled, would HMRC no longer regard it as a loan? If it is still a loan, there should be no tax due on it, and if is is Disguised Remuneration, then it is not a loan.
In terms of whether settlement means that the loan still exists, it does.
The Rangers case held that at the point the employee became entitled to their remuneration, it was their money.
The only way in which the legal integrity of the transaction could be preserved after that is if the employee paid money to a trust and the trustee then loaned it back to the employee.
So the employee is taxable on the full amount as income and has settled money on a trust and received a loan.
Paying tax on the income does not mean that the loan has ceased to exist for tax purposes.
Sorry.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by webberg View Post
The only way in which the legal integrity of the transaction could be preserved after that is if the employee paid money to a trust and the trustee then loaned it back to the employee.
Just wondering how this point would play out in court when determining if the loan is enforceable or not.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment