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

[webberg]

Morning All,

Great advise from people, much appreciated

On the last page of the letter from Gladstones solicitors, it states:

"If you pay £xxx before 12 February 2020, we will release you from all interest and repayment obligation in respect of these loans.

If for argument sake this was paid, would they be able to claim andthing in the future under a different company name?

Thank you

Please read the thread.

A write off is almost certainly a tax charge within section 554C ITEPA.

By all means pay your 12% but be prepared to pay another 20%/40%/45% of the remaining 88% in tax charges.

[webberg]

I’ll accept that for the purposes of clarity and the avoidance of doubt, webberg.

Thank you.

[webberg]

I have all the correspondence from HMRC and the final statement from them says that " I can confirm that no inheritance tax liability can be calculated on the payments you received from xxxxxxxx which is a Note 4 scheme". Irrelevant. The tax position does not and cannot influence the legal rights and obligations you signed up for. (I'll caveat that by saying that in IHT, HMRC are running a completely incoherent argument which does seek to do this, but it will perish in Tribunal)>

However, maybe we are missing a trick here. Surely as with PPI isn't it the fact that these 'solutions' to tax planning were mis-sold. ie. I still have documentation which states that the solution I used was supported and backed by an eminent tax QC, met with all HMRC requirements etc. Irrelevant. This is not a regulated industry and therefore there are no rules to say how these products should be sold. It's no different to going to a market stall and buying that "real" Rolex for £10. Caveat emptor. QC opinions are just that - opinions - not statements of irrefutable fact. They were wrong.

Surely there is potential her for a 'class action' UK law does not permit class actions by a number of people ( us affected), whereby we could look to counter claim against these people for compensation for mis-selling of a financial product. see above. almost impossible. Evidently they are signed up to the FCA, so shouldn't they abide by these rules ? I've been investigating these schemes for 5 years and more and have NEVER seen anything resembling any FCA license, approval or letter. If you have one I'd be delighted to see it.

Come on guys.

By all means explore the issue and make suggestions, but please do not make assumptions that have been explored, ad nauseum, in these threads and found to be wanting.

That makes sorting wheat from chaff harder and worse, allows some to have false hope which will be dashed later.

[78paul]

Come on guys.

By all means explore the issue and make suggestions, but please do not make assumptions that have been explored, ad nauseum, in these threads and found to be wanting.

That makes sorting wheat from chaff harder and worse, allows some to have false hope which will be dashed later.

Then it sounds that we are all screwed one way or the other..
1) by HMRC for taxing us on the Loan Remuneration Scheme
2) By the Scheme itself on interest charges and/or them chasing the full amount of the loan in its entirety.

In short, we might as well have earned monies for nothing and given it to them for those years, plus pay them the 15% fee, and also pay HMRC for the pleasure of doing so..

[Wazza1882]

Then it sounds that we are all screwed one way or the other..
1) by HMRC for taxing us on the Loan Remuneration Scheme
2) By the Scheme itself on interest charges and/or them chasing the full amount of the loan in its entirety.

In short, we might as well have earned monies for nothing and given it to them for those years, plus pay them the 15% fee, and also pay HMRC for the pleasure of doing so..

Yeah that's ridiculous. Something, in law, has to give. We can't have worked our bums off to earn absolutely nothing for all these years.

I'm sure a court will see these loans as salary (even a supreme court ruling sees it that way). The valid scenario is that if not settled already, HMRC will come looking for the tax on these payments. Fine for that, but not both. Out of order.

[webberg]

Then it sounds that we are all screwed one way or the other..
1) by HMRC for taxing us on the Loan Remuneration Scheme
2) By the Scheme itself on interest charges and/or them chasing the full amount of the loan in its entirety.

In short, we might as well have earned monies for nothing and given it to them for those years, plus pay them the 15% fee, and also pay HMRC for the pleasure of doing so..

With respect, you're jumping from one extreme (we're Ok because we've been mis-sold and that will save us) to another (we're all doomed), without touching on reality anywhere in between.

Let's take the above, one by one.

HMRC claims that the money received via the sort of scheme we see here is taxable and the tax is due from you. I would probably agree with the first part - the money was taxable - in most instances, but not the second.

We have had a strategy for 5 years saying the tax is due from the employer. We now see this argument being run (in various qualities) by pretty much everybody in the sector (even if they rubbished it at the beginning).

There are Tribunal cases going right now and more in the pipeline to test this.

The schemes paid you money and had to call it something that was not taxable, i.e. a loan. Was it really a loan, made by a bona fide lender who had authority, funds, sufficient interest - legal and beneficial? Or was it in fact a payment of remuneration and the loan agreement is little more than a piece of paper designed to make a tax scheme work and nothing else?

Further, that loan has been in and out of trust (trustees have laws to follow) and is now in the hands of a third party. Is that chain of transactions legal?

The solicitors now engaged do have an unsavoury reputation, but so what? They are not owners of the loan. They may be on a commission basis, but so what? If you raise enough objections and make life as legally difficult as you can, will they not lose interest?

Do not however, rely upon supposed rules of fairness or nanny state oversight of sellers of these products.

Look as dispassionately as you can at the facts. What were you paid, why, when, how. What was the reality there? What did you sign? Why? Who did you rely upon to advise you?

Reality lies between the extreme points you have touched and unfortunately you do need to visit that world and get to the facts and then examine the theories around them (such as ours and no doubt others).

[lowpaidworker]

Then it sounds that we are all screwed one way or the other..
1) by HMRC for taxing us on the Loan Remuneration Scheme
2) By the Scheme itself on interest charges and/or them chasing the full amount of the loan in its entirety.

In short, we might as well have earned monies for nothing and given it to them for those years, plus pay them the 15% fee, and also pay HMRC for the pleasure of doing so..

Not sure the learned man is saying that. I am not part of this particular schceme but considering this thread only started a few days ago its gone crazy.

My humble opinion is there are too many people making crazy suggestions and guessing. There has also been some v good posts, hasten to add.

I think before there is anymore panic simply get some advice. I do beleive the poster who you replied to has a lot knowledge about these schemes.

I am in the same storm but just on a different boat.

[webberg]

Yeah that's ridiculous. Something, in law, has to give. We can't have worked our bums off to earn absolutely nothing for all these years.

I'm sure a court will see these loans as salary (even a supreme court ruling sees it that way). The valid scenario is that if not settled already, HMRC will come looking for the tax on these payments. Fine for that, but not both. Out of order.

Read the threads.

A Supreme Court heard a TAX case.

It said that money was TAXABLE as it arose to the employee from the employer.

The money was deemed to have subsequently to this point, been moved into a trust and loaned.

Thus it was taxable and a loan.

Do NOT assume that tax law will overturn contract law. Without a special law being implemented, it will not.

[Wazza1882]

Read the threads.

A Supreme Court heard a TAX case.

It said that money was TAXABLE as it arose to the employee from the employer.

The money was deemed to have subsequently to this point, been moved into a trust and loaned.

Thus it was taxable and a loan.

Do NOT assume that tax law will overturn contract law. Without a special law being implemented, it will not.

Thanks for replying and I have read the thread and also your great post on staying real. I agree,

However, this can not be just. How can a court rule that the work you did for a client for x amount of years be free because of how you were mis-sold (not in the PPI sense); ok I will change the word to misled in to believing that the scheme was all above board and loans would not be repayable. Hell they rushed you through paperwork (if there were any).

So we've paid them their 15%
We'll pay them back the money they got from the client (not their own money they're lending us)
AND we'll pay HMRC the rightful tax due on this.

Badly. Out. Of. Pocket.

Well what they'll find is that there will be a lot of bankruptcies if that happens and none of them will get their money back.

[jbryce]

Remember the last attempt to extort money from the loans was a 15% write off fee?


Ignore the letters, do not engage. Certainly DO NOT send them any money. They're relying on some people caving to make this worth their while.