IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands

[dk27]

While I am newbie in replying, I am reading this forum for a long time. I dont doubt intension of Webber but I have a feeling that there is an undercurrent of scaring people into a deal with scammers. I would rather prove this as income and pay to HMRC than paying to these scums. It was a mistake to use such schemes but contractors can not be blamed for this as they sleep walked into this nightmare. Govt need to sort this situation out and make sure scheme owners are behind the bar after taking the rightful tax. Alas it is too idealist to expect this.

[WoffleCopter]

Tax not being applied does not indicate that it was not remuneration but it weakens the case in the mind of a Chancery Judge who may not be deeply versed in where the tax argument is. Therefore to argue it was not a loan but remuneration, you are accepting the taxable nature of the money.

So for those who have settled with HMRC, now accepting it was taxable and paying the tax owed - would this not suggest to the judge that they were indeed not loans at all?

[pnr8uk]

While I am newbie in replying, I am reading this forum for a long time. I dont doubt intension of Webber but I have a feeling that there is an undercurrent of scaring people into a deal with scammers. I would rather prove this as income and pay to HMRC than paying to these scums. It was a mistake to use such schemes but contractors can not be blamed for this as they sleep walked into this nightmare. Govt need to sort this situation out and make sure scheme owners are behind the bar after taking the rightful tax. Alas it is too idealist to expect this.

The intention of Webberg and others is to give you the truth and no false expectations.

Naivety is no defence, we all tried that with HMRC.

[webberg]

So for those who have settled with HMRC, now accepting it was taxable and paying the tax owed - would this not suggest to the judge that they were indeed not loans at all?

I'm afraid not. read the sticky at the top of the thread.

The money passing to you became taxable BEFORE it was paid to a third party who subsequently loaned it to you.

Thus the money is according to HMRC, taxable.

Because the money allegedly then went to a third party with whom you signed a loan agreement, you have to apply the appropriate legislation to that transaction.

There are two transactions here.

(After saying that in an analysis of the Zeeman JR case taken and lost by LCAG, prepared and published by Rory Mullan QC, he suggests that the Judge conflated the remuneration and the loan and essentially said that they were the same. I confess that I have studied the case and his views a number of times and I cannot get to the same position as Mr Mullan. I recognise however that he is a tax barrister of some repute and I'm willing to concede that he may have better insight here than I.)

[webberg]

While I am newbie in replying, I am reading this forum for a long time. I dont doubt intension of Webber but I have a feeling that there is an undercurrent of scaring people into a deal with scammers. see below I would rather prove this as income and pay to HMRC than paying to these scums. There is no "choice" here. There is a distinct chance that you will pay HMRC the tax on the income AND be forced to contemplate repaying the loan. This is not and either/or scenario. It was a mistake to use such schemes but contractors can not be blamed for this as they sleep walked into this nightmare. A Court would disagree I suspect. They might say that as you were effectively putting an entire year of income - and more - at risk, would it not have been reasonable and sensible to undertake some due diligence? Govt need to sort this situation out and make sure scheme owners are behind the bar after taking the rightful tax. Alas it is too idealist to expect this. Nothing to do with ideals, just the application of law that has not changed in its principles between the time that you entered the scheme and today

Scaremongering?

Where do you draw the line between viewing the facts without prejudice and using knowledge to arrive at certain outcomes - and making predictions of dire consequence in order to gain advantage?

I think it's subjective. My intention is to ask you to take a realistic view of what you did and the consequences and to then base your defence on those facts.

A defence based on "things you were told", hearsay, deception, lack of due diligence, will be blown away quickly.

Yes, the Court has a duty to arrive at a fair result but it is a result based on what the parties agreed. You might argue that the agreement was you were to be paid x% - all taxes settled - and that news of "loans" and the like is something that you did not and do not understand. Given the sums involved, I suggest that a Court may decide that in entering such a scheme (one you did not understand) was reckless and not the actions of a reasonable person.

I have set out in a sticky at the top of this section, where I think the various parties are. I hope I have been even handed in doing so.

I think that there is no one size fits all strategy here. Some of those who claim ownership of loans have, in my opinion, very debatable claims. Others have a better position.

Whilst I may dream of coming to the rescue of all astride my white charger, clad in shining armour, the reality, like most battlefields, is scrabbling around in the mud and blood and doing whatever is necessary to stay alive. I do know however that being behind a shield of hard fact is better than relying upon a cardboard cut out.

[Jax43]

Demand payment of interest

Hello,

I have also received a letter out of the blue from Gladstones solicitors who are writing on behalf of Felicitas Solutions. Felicitas Solutions to demand payment of interest.

I settled the tax payment directly with HMRC last year so am also at a lose as to why they think they can demand payment!

I have tried to communicate with them to confirm this but their latest answer was “perhaps a tax barrister could answer”

At a lose as to what to do now!

[WoffleCopter]

I'm afraid not. read the sticky at the top of the thread.
The money passing to you became taxable BEFORE it was paid to a third party who subsequently loaned it to you.
Thus the money is according to HMRC, taxable.

If the money should have been taxed at source, then how may HMRC come after contractors for settlement - surely they should be legally bound to go after the party who received monies from the end client i.e. IQ Contracts/Consulting, or more accurately, the umbrella company they engaged (which still exists btw) to enter into contract with the end client. AFAIK if an employer fails to deduct PAYE correctly, the employee is not liable.

Because the money allegedly then went to a third party with whom you signed a loan agreement, you have to apply the appropriate legislation to that transaction.

I am 99% sure I never signed a loan agreement. The application was via an on-line portal. I have PDFs and email trail of all documents I received from them. Included are just standard (unsigned) contracts of employment with IQ for undefined hours/location/remuneration. No mention of the word loan in them.

[webberg]

If the money should have been taxed at source, then how may HMRC come after contractors for settlement - surely they should be legally bound to go after the party who received monies from the end client i.e. IQ Contracts/Consulting, or more accurately, the umbrella company they engaged (which still exists btw) to enter into contract with the end client. AFAIK if an employer fails to deduct PAYE correctly, the employee is not liable. Good question - how long do you have. HMRC are denying the obvious here.



I am 99% sure I never signed a loan agreement. The application was via an on-line portal. I have PDFs and email trail of all documents I received from them. Included are just standard (unsigned) contracts of employment with IQ for undefined hours/location/remuneration. No mention of the word loan in them.

Then you are unique in the several hundred cases I have reviewed and you have no problems.

[Paralytic]

I am 99% sure I never signed a loan agreement. The application was via an on-line portal. I have PDFs and email trail of all documents I received from them. Included are just standard (unsigned) contracts of employment with IQ for undefined hours/location/remuneration. No mention of the word loan in them.

A loan agreement does not have to have the word "loan" in it.

[stevematch]

ETC

Hello,

I have also received a letter out of the blue from Gladstones solicitors who are writing on behalf of Felicitas Solutions. Felicitas Solutions to demand payment of interest.

I settled the tax payment directly with HMRC last year so am also at a lose as to why they think they can demand payment!

I have tried to communicate with them to confirm this but their latest answer was “perhaps a tax barrister could answer”

At a lose as to what to do now!

Hi mate, I am like you and have paid the tax, I have since spoken with Andy Wood from ETC and I feel a bit more secure that he is in my corner. I contacted him via his Twitter page and his responses / messages have me less worried. There is a lot of good information on this forum and a few very knowledgeable types.