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

[Locumconractor]

I find it hard to believe that people think that settling with HMRC for avoiding tax using these loans schemes has any impact on a contract you had with one of these dodgy companies. People seem so sure that settling demands by HMRC somehow rewrites history and changes the past.

We have very few rights on our side on this and very few friends we can rely on. I get very little sympathy from Even good friends on this subject.

No amount of anger and denial is going to make these people go away.

It’s just a shame that with all these IT pros on here in this position, no one here has the right set of skills to make these records disappear...

The point is obviously the "loans" are known to be disguised income and not loans at all, therefore nothing to pay back.

[Locumconractor]

Last time I looked HMRC line officers were not trained in the finer or darker arts of contract analysis (indeed we find that they struggle with some basic tax concepts) and therefore I would be putting very little faith in the words of such a person.

My view is that what the HMRC told you is completely inaccurate.

Tax and contract law are different and it's very possible for the money to be two things simultaneously.

If you have informed HMRC of the latest demand, it will be several weeks before they respond - if at all.

Big Group - go to our webpage and follow the links.

Be aware, Big Group is a tax litigation process and that is NOT what you want.

However we do have a "loan" group that is building quickly.

Thanks for you response. Just so confused as to how money can be deemed as disguised income which requires income tax to be paid, and yet still be a loan which is to be paid back.

How can it be both?

[eek]

The point is obviously the "loans" are known to be disguised income and not loans at all, therefore nothing to pay back.

Be careful here:-

It's perfectly possible for HMRC to argue it's disguised income so tax is owed while the scheme provider claims it's a loan.

And both parties could be correct in law - tax law isn't the same as contract law especially when that contract law could be IoM rather than english law..

[dammit chloe]

Thanks for you response. Just so confused as to how money can be deemed as disguised income which requires income tax to be paid, and yet still be a loan which is to be paid back.

How can it be both?

It wasn't a one step process.

[corsair]

Thanks for you response. Just so confused as to how money can be deemed as disguised income which requires income tax to be paid, and yet still be a loan which is to be paid back.

How can it be both?

Good god it’s quite simple. You took a loan to cheat the tax man. We all did.
The tax man didn’t fall for it. You were forced to admit to the tax man that you tried to avoid taxation by saying you had a loan from these assholes, despite the fact that you only borrowed the money you paid in. You signed a contract to say it was a loan.

Paying the dodged taxes to the HMRC doesn’t change the fact that you signed a legal contract for some dodgy loan. It in no way cancels that agreement. Why oh why do so many supposedly clever people keep denying this. Even my fekin wife gets it now, FFS.

Perhaps your memory of taking home £4800 a month in 2011 or whenever and paying £18 a month in tax and Ni is a bit vague, as is the fact that you probably electronically signed, every month, an agreement for a never recalled loan is vague too.

But you probably did, as did we all. And now those ***** that enabled this are trying to squeeze us with threats.

Yes I’m in the same boat. I’ve an agreement with the HMRC to clear my debts with the country. I’m paying for my Porsche Boxster Every month. But its not parked outside,it doesn’t exist. But that’s how I think of my 5 year repayment deal with the HMRC.

I will not be forced to pay these ‘debts’ to these sharks. I’d rather end it all. God knows I’ve been close two or three times in the last five years or so.

[BrilloPad]

I was never in a loan scheme. But my view is that some are tax dodgers like yourself. Some were fed up with IR35. Some were duped. And the fact that HMRC did nothing in 1999 (when the schemes were first promoted) until 2017 is disgraceful.

[BrilloPad]

And I hope all the posters here remember that these forums are public. They are watched by the criminals who pushed these schemes and the criminals at HMRC.

CUK will not dob you in. No way. CUK never dobbed anyone back in 2008.....

[webberg]

Moderator has deleted post

For the record, I and my firm will not have any part in the sort of vague threat of personal attack being implied here.

I will also say for the record that such tactics make those who use them, no better a human than their targets.

[webberg]

Thanks for you response. Just so confused as to how money can be deemed as disguised income which requires income tax to be paid, and yet still be a loan which is to be paid back.

How can it be both?

It's relatively simple.

The logic is that the money due to you from the employer is taxable income.

Before it is paid to you, the employer diverts ("redirects") the money to a third party who make a loan to you.

Thus it's taxable income when it is DUE to you and a LOAN by the time it reaches you.

This is essentially the Rangers decision and whilst I think it has wide application it may not be applicable in all cases.

[DealorNoDeal]

Harsh but fair.