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

[GregRickshaw]

Sunday morning fun indeed ,

Which firm?

[Lonerous]

Slightly tangential to this topic, but as a lay person when it comes to this subject, can someone clarify the following?

Let’s imagine a scenario where someone was involved with this for a month on a rate of £500 per day.

Circa 2011

Contractor ‘x earns £500 per day, or roughly £10K a month
Contractor ‘x’ submits his approved timesheet to agency at the end of the week.
Agency sends £10K to loan scheme administrator (e.g Sanzar, Winchester)
Scheme administrator pays contactor in loans and basis wage, minus their commission.

Circa 2020

Loans are now being demanded back.

Question

What exactly happened to the £10K sent from the agency?

If this is truly a 'loan', then the scheme administrator must still be holding the £10k sent to them in the first place?

As mentioned, I’m a lay person in these matters and may be missing something glaringly obvious.

[eek]

Slightly tangential to this topic, but as a lay person when it comes to this subject, can someone clarify the following?

Let’s imagine a scenario where someone was involved with this for a month on a rate of £500 per day.

Circa 2011

Contractor ‘x earns £500 per day, or roughly £10K a month
Contractor ‘x’ submits his approved timesheet to agency at the end of the week.
Agency sends £10K to loan scheme administrator (e.g Sanzar, Winchester)
Scheme administrator pays contactor in loans and basis wage, minus their commission.

Circa 2020

Loans are now being demanded back.

Question

What exactly happened to the £10K sent from the agency?

If this is truly a 'loan', then the scheme administrator must still be holding the £10k sent to them in the first place?

As mentioned, I’m a lay person in these matters and may be missing something glaringly obvious.

Read the posts NAT linked to in https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2799022

and the administrator would have split the money 3 ways when he received it, some went direct to you as wages, some went into his pocket and some was assigned to a trust and then "loaned" back to you.

That trust now has an IOU of x times £7,000 or so against your name which (if the beneficiaries of the trust have changed and you are no longer one) means you are now just a person who owes the trust money and the trust is likely to want the money back.

[Emily1985]

Hi

Which firm?

— Sent you a direct message , hope you received it .

[eek]

— Sent you a direct message , hope you received it .

Be very wary and suspicious of new posters offering advice

[Whowouldhavethought]

Who is out of pocket

Read the posts NAT linked to in https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2799022

and the administrator would have split the money 3 ways when he received it, some went direct to you as wages, some went into his pocket and some was assigned to a trust and then "loaned" back to you.

That trust now has an IOU of x times £7,000 or so against your name which (if the beneficiaries of the trust have changed and you are no longer one) means you are now just a person who owes the trust money and the trust is likely to want the money back.

So with this, is there anyone actually out of pocket? Or this literally a loophole that is being exploited?

[eek]

So with this, is there anyone actually out of pocket? Or this literally a loophole that is being exploited?

It's not a loophole it's a benefit / problem with revocable trusts depending on whether you control them or not. If you control them they are great, if you don't control them they are great until you are no longer a beneficiary at which point the money you got from the trust is a big problem as the loan needs to be paid back.

So suppose I'm a person without morals who back in 2010 created a tax avoidance scheme. I create a revocable trust and use the revocation to allow me to continually add new joiners to the trust.

Eventually HMRC catch up, the loan charge scheme arrives and my market disappears.

Now over the years I've created trusts worth millions all of which I have the right to change the beneficiaries of - and I would like to stop working, say for a nice retirement in Malta. Trouble is all those trusts don't have any assets beyond a set of IOUs attached to the money that was lent to the other beneficiaries.

But if I remove all the old beneficiaries from the trusts and keep myself and my family as the remaining beneficiaries - then suddenly there is a lot of people for which the trustees no longer have any duty of care and who owe the trust money and a few beneficiaries (me and my family) who would like that money...

Spot the problem for people who don't control the trust..

And do you have any control over the trust?

[cojak]

Repost

A word of warning Ladies and Gentlemen.

In the past we have had scheme advisors pretending to be punters caught up in this kind of mess.

Their modis operandi is to ask you to contact them using email away from the forum (either publicly or via PMs), and then try to persuade you to to drop proceedings/provide you with false information and certainly to stop posting negative things about the original scheme or the debt collectors (presumably to try and keep the brand ‘clean’).

Be aware of those who try this, test the waters of any WhatsApp group for this kind of thing happening.

And let the Mods know what is happening, we will deal with the forums our end without letting on who informed us.

[Whowouldhavethought]

It's not a loophole it's a benefit / problem with revocable trusts depending on whether you control them or not. If you control them they are great, if you don't control them they are great until you are no longer a beneficiary at which point the money you got from the trust is a big problem as the loan needs to be paid back.

So suppose I'm a person without morals who back in 2010 created a tax avoidance scheme. I create a revocable trust and use the revocation to allow me to continually add new joiners to the trust.

Eventually HMRC catch up, the loan charge scheme arrives and my market disappears.

Now over the years I've created trusts worth millions all of which I have the right to change the beneficiaries of - and I would like to stop working, say for a nice retirement in Malta. Trouble is all those trusts don't have any assets beyond a set of IOUs attached to the money that was lent to the other beneficiaries.

But if I remove all the old beneficiaries from the trusts and keep myself and my family as the remaining beneficiaries - then suddenly there is a lot of people for which the trustees no longer have any duty of care and who owe the trust money and a few beneficiaries (me and my family) who would like that money...

Spot the problem for people who don't control the trust..

And do you have any control over the trust?

That sounds so morally bankrupt that surely any court would go in favor of who was being asked for the money? Taking into account that this would financially ruin so many people, bankruptcy, families collapsing, potentially suicide!

The human factor to this is humongous, especially where the people promoting these schemes have already been paid.

I appreciate your posts by the way. It doesn't align to the narrative I want to hear (for obvious reasons) but I think that having the facts laid out will help people look at this more seriously rather than ignoring it.

[eek]

That sounds so morally bankrupt that surely any court would go in favor of who was being asked for the money? Taking into account that this would financially ruin so many people, bankruptcy, families collapsing, potentially suicide!

The human factor to this is humongous, especially where the people promoting these schemes have already been paid.

I appreciate your posts by the way. It doesn't align to the narrative I want to hear (for obvious reasons) but I think that having the facts laid out will help people look at this more seriously rather than ignoring it.

Sadly as has to be pointed out, just because it's morally bankrupt doesn't make it illegal - it is completely legal. Likewise you may not have paperwork regarding the loans but that doesn't matter as receipt of payment without query is enough to show acceptance. The darwin paperwork posted a few pages back tells me how Darwin got the money and how you got some of it back, it doesn't tell me anything about how the rest of the money you received got back to you.

The thing was that tax schemes were a rich man's game until sadly a few people discovered how to make a lot of money from taking advantage of people by scaring them about IR35 and tricking into anything that gave them a bit more money. And these really weren't people you should trust and given that there is little money left to make selling schemes it seems they wish to collect money another way.

Someone asked on Friday what I think you should do - having given it a lot of thought - if there is a 5% deal still on the table and I got confirmation:

1) that it would be considered complete payment (so find a decent lawyer)
2) it didn't trigger expensive IHT issues (get WTT / ETC to check)

I would be trying to find the money to pay that bill.

And I know it's going to hurt like hell to pay them a penny but it's probably better than the other options - as unless a mod tells me things that differ from my opinions of the weekend I suspect court cases are going to start and once they do you will be repaying 100% of the money that was lent to you, possibly with interest and court costs on top