Paying off the Loan

[Calmbeforethestorm]

The other issue is whether you can trust the Trustees.

The trustees of the Montpelier scheme requested repayment of 10% of the loans in 2016. Some people did repay but they haven't been able to get any of the money back since. The trust deeds gave the trustees wide discretion as to how they could deploy the funds, so whether there is any money left is debatable.

Montpelier are definitely still around.

I can provide their phone number if anyone wants it.

[Loan Ranger]

Montpelier are definitely still around.

I can provide their phone number if anyone wants it.

Around, yes. Trustworthy?

People who've repaid loans can't get any money back from them.

[webberg]

Definately a bit of a grey area Webberg, I am fairly confident that, in my case at least, I can repay without falling foul of earmarking whilst in the UK and wouldn't fall foul of earmarking in the future if the money was taken back and declared at the same time... so there is scope to spread it out over time at lower rates...but this is because the Trustees hold funds for all beneficiaries and they are only "earmarked" as they are paid back.Much in the same way that a company pension fund operates.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if I left the Uk in , say 5 years, and then withdrew the funds whilst resident outside the UK. Its a fairly extreme option....but beats bankruptcy I guess.

I have a wealth of expensively obtained tax counsel's opinion on this subject which Ill share with you if you care to PM me.

Pretty sure I've seen that advice and if it's what I think it is, then in my opinion, that advice is unlikely to find agreement with HMRC, will be challenged and is likely to be found wanting.

It's not enough that a trust holds a fungible sum for many potential beneficiaries which it may distribute at discretion. That is fine on paper and would fit the literal interpretation but tax law ahs moved on.

Now a Judge will look at the facts. Did the money ever reach the trust? Did the trustee ever have the funds under its control? What was the source of the loans - a UK bank account or the trust account in far flung Exotica? Was it in fact a payment from a UK source controlled by a UK entity? Is it the case, that despite discretion on paper, the percentage of money you received was always a function of your invoices? In short, was the trust and its alleged arrangement real or just a paper castle?

Look at the tax cases.

Look at Icebreaker. Look at Rangers. Look at Eclipse.

I sincerely hope that your store of expensive advice is correct and that we will see Courts come back towards the rule of law. I hope I am wrong.

Unfortunately my faith in that position being restored is low.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

Pretty sure I've seen that advice and if it's what I think it is, then in my opinion, that advice is unlikely to find agreement with HMRC, will be challenged and is likely to be found wanting.

It's not enough that a trust holds a fungible sum for many potential beneficiaries which it may distribute at discretion. That is fine on paper and would fit the literal interpretation but tax law ahs moved on.

Now a Judge will look at the facts. Did the money ever reach the trust? Did the trustee ever have the funds under its control? What was the source of the loans - a UK bank account or the trust account in far flung Exotica? Was it in fact a payment from a UK source controlled by a UK entity? Is it the case, that despite discretion on paper, the percentage of money you received was always a function of your invoices? In short, was the trust and its alleged arrangement real or just a paper castle?

Look at the tax cases.

Look at Icebreaker. Look at Rangers. Look at Eclipse.

I sincerely hope that your store of expensive advice is correct and that we will see Courts come back towards the rule of law. I hope I am wrong.

Unfortunately my faith in that position being restored is low.

Like I said, my case is quite specific and has nothing at all to do with contracting, loans instead of remuneration or anything like that. Im not prepared to discuss it in open forum either.

[webberg]

Like I said, my case is quite specific and has nothing at all to do with contracting, loans instead of remuneration or anything like that. Im not prepared to discuss it in open forum either.

I equally have no desire to exchange views on specific cases here and my intentions were not to elicit information from you.

If you feel I have done that - my apologies.

You clearly however need to be careful in mapping across commentary from me and others - which is all centred on contracting - to a situation which is not. Tax is usually settled on fine details and will turn on seemingly insignificant facts.

[Calmbeforethestorm]

I equally have no desire to exchange views on specific cases here and my intentions were not to elicit information from you.

If you feel I have done that - my apologies.

You clearly however need to be careful in mapping across commentary from me and others - which is all centred on contracting - to a situation which is not. Tax is usually settled on fine details and will turn on seemingly insignificant facts.

Yes sorry , I know you can always ask me if you want details and you're completely right, going into too much detail here is risky....if only because it confuses readers.

Im merely attempting ( badly) to impart information in the hope that between us all we get the right answers.

I have derived a great deal of comfort form being involved in this forum tho Im not a contactor.There isnt another for folk like me Im aware of.

[QUODM]

simultaneous earmarking and relevant step repayment.

on the earmarking thing again

Heres a link, off a link ILikeTax posted in another forum.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim45110

Preparatory
Section 554B(1)(a) refers to a sum of money or asset being earmarked ‘with a view to a later relevant step being taken’.

Therefore, ‘earmarking’ is not a free-standing action. It is a preparatory step for a later relevant step within Section 554C or 554D.

Simultaneous steps
Suppose a sum of money or asset is earmarked with a view to a relevant step within Section 554C or 554D being taken at the same time.

Then it is not earmarked with a view to a later relevant step being taken. And so this act of earmarking is not a relevant step within Section 554B.


So suggestion if the trust kept it in a general pot and only earmarked it WHEN they paid it to you, this wouldn't count as a relevant step, therefore no part 7a Charge?
Useful if you're non resident when you did this all, no?