Trust help line email help!

[jbryce]

Well, Baker Tilly and THL, apparently, have listened to the feedback (which I think was basically telling Baker Tilly and THL to go to hell), and have decided not to implement their threat to move to 10%.

The offer to write off 95% of your loans was due to expire today, to be replaced with an offer to write off only 90%.

Thanks for your feedback. Many people like you, whose loans are still outstanding, were unhappy about the increase in the amount they would need to repay.

The increase has been reconsidered and we are pleased to report that it will not be implemented.

Their avarice is sickening, especially given AlisonN's experience. It's a vulgar attempt to make quick rip-off cash out of pople's misery. Surely an offer to write off the loans for those who chose to settle for a nominal fee would have been an easier way to extracate everyone from this mess?

I have to wonder why Baker Tilly International is having anything to do with this crap. Contrast their web site with THL's and you have to wonder how connected they really are.

In the meantime, for those of you who feel that THL and Baker Tilly's behaviour is outrageous, please complain to:

• The IOM regulator, who will tell you to complain to Baker Tilly but at least they will get some visibility. Use [email protected] -it will get routed to the Fiduciary Services
• Baker Tilly International. [email protected]
• Baker Tilly IoM. [email protected]

[webberg]

I offered but he declined due to me being a newbie/potential THL mole.

You are correct that I declined.

You are very incorrect in saying it was because of the reasons you mention.

We are a firm regulated by CIOT and as such we are obliged to obey the GDPR rules.

This means that, in our capacity as a professional firm, we are limited in what information can be used, usually only information arising from a client.

We also need to be very careful that we maintain our objectivity. A couple of times in the past, our actions have been pointed to as validating or confirming a particular point of view when in fact all that has happened is that we have been sent material that is potentially compromising.

We are offered such material regularly and decided some time ago that we had a choice of accepting everything or nothing. We have gone with the latter.

[Galvanised]

"Now - because I was so optimistic way back when I didn't keep a shred of my original agreements with any of these outfits. I cannot say how DEEPLY I regret that now. But I do think we need to get that stuff together because if we're to get any degree of certainty they we need the actual contract/agreements signed way back when. I DON'T want to engage with THL to attempt to try and get this stuff, as I don't think you'd get anywhere with that. "

I've got mine. I asked for it and they sent it. I just need someone who understands to read it and translate it I to layman's.

One thing I do have though is information from 'them' saying "this is not a tax disguising scheme or an EBT". So maybe it could be argued that I've been deceived into signing something much like the PPI cases.

I'm reluctant to contact these guys because I also don't want to give them any current information about me. They're after full KYC (Know your customer) info aren't they via that portal? As such - very reluctant to engage with them in any way shape or form.

[Galvanised]

Galvanised but totally conflicted

You are correct that I declined.

You are very incorrect in saying it was because of the reasons you mention.

We are a firm regulated by CIOT and as such we are obliged to obey the GDPR rules.

This means that, in our capacity as a professional firm, we are limited in what information can be used, usually only information arising from a client.

We also need to be very careful that we maintain our objectivity. A couple of times in the past, our actions have been pointed to as validating or confirming a particular point of view when in fact all that has happened is that we have been sent material that is potentially compromising.

We are offered such material regularly and decided some time ago that we had a choice of accepting everything or nothing. We have gone with the latter.

Right - so thanks @Jbryce for the Baker Tilly, and IoM regulator details. I'll craft something up over the week on that I guess to lob over at them. Replying to Webberg's email because I'm wondering whether my initial idea for collating this information was a good one at all if his outfit isn't doing it (didn't realise what WTT was prior to that post). Also wondering whether it just becomes an online resource for HMRC (even if information is scrubbed), although another part of me thinks that across however many investigations they have going they must be able to get a cross section of agreements across all of these operations.

On another point, of being "Galvanised" I said I was going to share stuff as and when I had useful stuff. I wonder did anyone else get a thick packet from HMRC on Friday? After 2 years of me saying "hey I'm done, just tell me what the number is" I got the number. The good news is the accountant I engaged to deal with HMRC gave me a really accurate estimate, the number was within 1%. So yay.

But the bad news is - there is STILL ambiguity about the settlement. And here I mean the IHT question. HMRC have said they have insufficient Trust details to calculate across the EIGHT trusts whether IHT is due for me. But they've volunteered to calculate it if the Loan will be released in 30 days of settlement. Obviously in the chain of this thread for at least one of these trusts that certainly won't be true and I am certain my tax professional has not made any overtures to the other seven. For people wondering why there are 8 trusts, I dunno, there just are. I was only dealing with two "providers", but that's they way it shook out over time.

They have handily said though - if

1) I arrange to release the loans
2) Another event makes the loans worth less, or
3) I have total loans over the nil rate band and its 10 years since your contract income was first received

I should write to them...

I know that number 3 is true and so do HMRC (its about 500k in total over 5 tax years from 2008/2009). What the hell do I do here? I mean I want closure on this, but I just wonder where will it end? I just don't see relief in sight. Yes for the PAYE/NICS, but the IHT question just seems unbounded? How much are we even talking about here? Anyone able to make a back of the fag packet calculation? How often are you paying it if the trustees aren't closing the trusts? Is it every 10 years or just the 10 year anniversary? If I left the UK (not something I thought I would contemplate) can this charge be evaded?

Sheesh. Anyhow thats the stuff running through my head at the minute, will be on the phone with the Tax Accountant on the Monday, anything he shares I'll repost for second opinion and in the hope it will help someone else out there.

Follow-up thought - a key number here is the 350k? If a balance is released so the loans are sub 350k is the 10 year anniversary of the loan charge avoided entirely? And also going along with that, there can't be a single anniversary for the whole balance right? This was over 6 years, surely its six different 10 year anniversary loan charges?

[Doggysoft]

You are correct that I declined.

You are very incorrect in saying it was because of the reasons you mention.

Apologies, I wasn't being facetious, I'd just misinterpreted post of your message.

[Safe]

THL and 5%

Folks,

Has anyone got any response from THL and if they have paid 5% they are asking? Did anyone get their deeds back?

[webberg]

I'm wondering whether my initial idea for collating this information was a good one at all if his outfit isn't doing it (didn't realise what WTT was prior to that post). Also wondering whether it just becomes an online resource for HMRC (even if information is scrubbed), although another part of me thinks that across however many investigations they have going they must be able to get a cross section of agreements across all of these operations.

Why do you think that we are not collecting and collating information?

We do have several terabytes of data on around 150 different schemes spanning 2000 to date.

We have a prepared analysis on most of them supported by redacted documents.

These are part and parcel of our strategy.

We are able to hold and use such data because it has come from our clients who have given us express permission.

What I cannot do is share the underlying data or the analysis with non clients.

If you wish to recreate the library we have, then in due course I would be happy to compare notes (to the extent I can) but in the meantime you need to be careful about GDPR and the like.

You might also want to take some legal advice about whether, in the event that you did hold such data, you might be obliged by a Government or other agency to hand over some or all of the data. I'm not a lawyer but you should check this out.

I'm happy to explain to you what WTT is and what we're doing if you want to PM/call us.

[neveragain]

Folks,

Has anyone got any response from THL and if they have paid 5% they are asking? Did anyone get their deeds back?

I also posted a similar question on another thread, no responses yet.

[hudson]

Well, Baker Tilly and THL, apparently, have listened to the feedback (which I think was basically telling Baker Tilly and THL to go to hell), and have decided not to implement their threat to move to 10%.



Their avarice is sickening, especially given AlisonN's experience. It's a vulgar attempt to make quick rip-off cash out of pople's misery. Surely an offer to write off the loans for those who chose to settle for a nominal fee would have been an easier way to extracate everyone from this mess?

I have to wonder why Baker Tilly International is having anything to do with this crap. Contrast their web site with THL's and you have to wonder how connected they really are.

In the meantime, for those of you who feel that THL and Baker Tilly's behaviour is outrageous, please complain to:

• The IOM regulator, who will tell you to complain to Baker Tilly but at least they will get some visibility. Use [email protected] -it will get routed to the Fiduciary Services
• Baker Tilly International. [email protected]
• Baker Tilly IoM. [email protected]

Maybe the Baker Tilly / THL connection is purely circumstantial. Maybe Baker Tilly provided a commercial off the shelf Trust product to the scheme providers.

If my business opens a business bank account with HSBC, it doesn't mean that HSBC is culpable also if I misuse my account for any nefarious financial activities. Maybe.

[Bemi]

The only person I've seen who claimed to get anything back was accused of being a THL mole and cancelled their account before providing any evidence.

You'd think someone on here would have done it already. Or maybe we're all waiting till the 15th

Still, another thing to be nervous about

I also posted a similar question on another thread, no responses yet.