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

[SouthKD]

Did they ask you to confirm your name as otherwise I strongly suspect it was the usual dodgy Indian HMRC phone call scam...

This to me says enough....

Appreciate you 'are trying to alert people not admit to the loan in their actions' but I honestly think you are creating more panic from people already stressed out with this situation.

People will naturally be emotive under this circumstance and this forum should offer the kindness to allow for it. Would you tell someone with depression to 'snap out of it'? I doubt it

[webberg]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>


That is incorrect.

If you are referring to the Murray Group case (Rangers), the Supreme Court said that in the circumstances they examined, loans very much did exist.

Their analysis was:

Payment falls due from employer to employee = employment income

Money is paid to third party (a trust in this instance) = contribution. (whether this is a contribution by the employer or employee is unclear)

Money from third party to individual = loan.

Same money but at different times in the transaction chain, even where that chain is short and takes place almost simultaneously, it happens.

Unless your scheme varies significantly from the one in Rangers, chances are that the loan exists and therefore has to be dealt with.

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

1) You were the person who brought up the FCA - I merely pointed out they aren't relevant...

2) As I pointed out a long time ago this money is Schrodinger money which means different people see it in different ways (all of which may be valid). To HMRC it's not a loan, it was income but it's perfectly possible that to Felicitas and a none tax tribunal court it's a loan that needs to be repaid. And that isn't fair but being blunt life isn't fair.

Webberg explains it above as well so hopefully across the two explanations you can see why I think you need to actually decide what you are going to do.

3) And I'm not bored, I'm distracting myself which is a blooming big difference

Finally just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I'm stoking up anger - you may be angry but that's quite likely because my answers aren't don't worry the scary large bill will disappear.

[SouthKD]

To be clear - this is my position - I'm just a contractor who saw through the schemes because had the internet not appeared as I graduated in 1994 t I do itit is incredibly likely that I would have become a tax specialist and would have then created such schemes - it's the type of devious thing I enjoy designing (but with software instead).

As for anyone thinking I'm part of Fecilitas - it would require a time machine to pull that trick off.

Have fun with that!

[Wtaf]

I wouldn't count on this. The vast majority of the general public won't have much sympathy at all, and probably close to zero interest. "You're a tax dodger and you got involved with the some dodgy people and you knew what you were doing. Tough tulip" is how the general public will see it.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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>

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.