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

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

What am I clutching at again? The original suggesting of going to WTT and ETC was because so many things interact here - there was the loan charge scheme and there still is the risk of IHT and you don't want to settle a loan for 5% or even 12% and then discover that due to the form and structure of that write off HMRC can now generate a 40% IHT tax bill on the other 95/88%.

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

Tell me where I expect a court to do anything other than be a court of law. Seems you are now the one expecting and assuming, unless of course you work for a solicitor, maybe even a solicitor and you are familiar with what a court needs and what it doesn't require.

This is just what the scum want by the way, us falling out amongst each other.[/QUOTE]

I love your paranoia when all I needed to do is check back at your previous posts where you boosted about avoiding visiting the portal and told others not to visit it.

And given the sheer amount of money you owe (roughly £280,000, I believe again based on information you've posted on this thread) I can see why you are clutching at straws and hoping this battle will continue outside court.

Finally I really doubt the right to chase up the loans is the great argument you think it is. Go back and look at the Webberg's first post on this thread and tell me how plausible it really is that a firm of accountants who used to run trusts won't have organised proper paperwork when passing the management of said trust(s) to a different specialist firm in the IoM

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

Nope you are paying etc and wtt because there was and is a risk that any settlement of these loans may impact your tax position - and because of the sheer number of intersections potentially involved few other people have any chance of understanding the complete picture (it's far easier to learn the loan side of things than the tax side)...

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>


I'm at a loss as to how you can in the same sentence accept you received loans (a debt) yet dispute said debt.

And you seem to think Felicitas need to prove to you that the loan is valid - yet they are posting items on a portal that you refuse to look at and in reality don't actually need to prove anything until the day you are both sat in court.

Finally you seem to believe that a court is going to expect a lot of evidence regarding the loan and I don't, a number of large payments with no paperwork is likely more than enough..

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

At the end of the day we aren't going to agree.

I think these are business transaction outside of FCA's remit that Felicitas are correctly treating as a business transactions, that Felicitas have proof that you received large sums of money (untaxed) and won't need much effort to prove that these are loans that need to be repaid.

You believe the statement above is false in some way and therefore believe you have nothing to worry about.

Personally I think you are 100% wrong which is why I'm posting here to contradict your views so that people see both viewpoints and aren't sucked into your fantasy land.

[webberg]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

Be clear.

These are loans.

Money was paid to you. There are a limited number of definitions that could be.

Could be money for work done = employment income.

Could be a gift.

Could be money given but expected to be repaid.

None - or all - of the above can be subject to a contract or not. Sometimes transfer of funds is enough to create a contract.

The Consumer Credit Act is irrelevant. There were no goods or services exchanged and I suspect that in the majority of instances the value exceeds the limits there.

Many of the loans from the 20+ schemes are subject to IOM law. Very similar in some ways to UK law but not always exactly the same.

So I repeat.

Be precise and clear as to what you have to deal with.

We are now 160+ pages in and I fear all that has been established is a fairy tale based on hopes of imperfect legislation and make believe that a judge would give any weight to moral/ethical issues.

I'm sorry of this sounds harsh, but it is a hard reality and you need to be prepared to deal with that.

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

My viewpoint is that you don't even understand the battle you are in. You still talk about FCA and things that imply that you still believe this is a consumer finance agreement - it wasn't and it's not, it was and still is a business loan that was attached to a contract of employment where you gave up the rights to most of your income.

And iyou are right, it's perfectly possible that this final settlement offer is the first of many. It's perfectly possible (but I reckon there is 0% chance) that after this offer they will give up and walk away. However these people are the equivalent to F1's Piranha Club and will want whatever money they can get and I suspect they will view 6 months of asking for money more than enough time for courts to think they have given a reasonable chance for people to settle.

And equally it's perfectly possible that there is zero evidence that can be used to go to court - but I suspect you are missing any paperwork which would show they were wrong and they have evidence of the transfer of money into your bank account (as a loan) with no wage slip implying it's anything else.

[webberg]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

Not just EBTs.

Look at Hoey and Higgs. Both mass marketed loan schemes and in both instances the Rangers style approach was favoured.

There is no necessity for tax law and contract law to use the same definitions nor to hold that the transaction should be legally the same and in most EBT/mass market loan schemes, this is the case.

The tax legislation - as sanctioned by the SC - says the money was first employment income and later a loan.

Contract law can ignore the first part and just ask if there was a loan.

This sort of nitty gritty detail is IMPORTANT.

This is why those impacted need to be OBJECTIVE and analyse what happened rather than what they were told happened, what they hoped happened, what they wish had happened.

Facts are facts. Don't go into this sort of fight without being very clear on those facts.

In matters financial and dealing with contract law it is exceedingly rare for a Court to take into account what people thought they had, how unfair it is that they have something they thought they did not, what impact that has on personal lives. Not impossible, but rare.

Better to be armed with facts, evidence, clear analysis, objective thinking and defences.

If you cannot find that place for yourself, buy it from an adviser.

[Wtaf]

But schemes only exist because customers are greedy enough to join them... That's not saying I don't have sympathy but tax avoidance schemes were rich men's toys and my sympathy comes from the fact most people didn't fully understand the rules of the tax avoidance scheme game.

I put my hands up to being a trusting fool.

[eek]

I'm thankful I know different people from you. Don't forget there wouldn't be some tax avoidance schemes if they hadn't created them.

But schemes only exist because customers are greedy enough to join them... That's not saying I don't have sympathy but tax avoidance schemes were rich men's toys and my sympathy comes from the fact most people didn't fully understand the rules of the tax avoidance scheme game.