Originally posted by why
View Post
Such a negotiated position does not necessarily acknowledge that the debt is real but perhaps says that establishing the integrity of the claim is going to be an expensive and uncertain journey for all concerned. Whoever blinks first will lose that battle. Therefore who has the greater incentive, resource and knowledge?
Defeat? Not sure what you mean? At the end of the day documents were signed and rights and obligations established. These may not be what you thought they were but they were attractive enough at the time the documents were signed. The fact that the tax has not worked as expected does not mean that the rest of the arrangements are now to be reimagined.
You would also have to hope that any negotiated settlement would see a permanent end to claims and all rights and obligations settled. No point in the exercise otherwise.
The piece I've highlighted int he original post above - just not true.
The sequence was that the contractor did some hours at the end client and the END CLIENT PAID THE EMPLOYER/PROMOTER.
The PROMOTER and the contractor agreed - in writing - that the salary to be paid would be minimum wage.
The PROMOTER then - out of the goodness of his heart because there was certainly no legal obligation - paid money to a third party.
The third party - out of the goodness of their heart because there was certainly no legal obligation - made a loan to the contractor.
The money was not "payed (sic) in" by the contractor but by the PROMOTER.
Test this sequence. If the employer had received funds from the end client and decided NOT to pass on funds to a third party, would you have had any rights to reclaim that money? Unless you have used one of the two schemes out of the 150+ I have researched, the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Part - a very important part - of the process here is to turn the harsh light of reality onto the scheme you did and to examine the steps in an unblinkered way. Forget much of the sales speak that you chose to believe and instead examine the facts. I suspect that if you do, not only will you see that the original scheme was flawed but that the legacy is a series fo legal rights and obligations that remain to be dealt with.
Comment