Loans being demanded - a summary

[eek]

Just seen on another thread another Co demanding loans be repaid. Question is do people think every single scheme that used a loan struture will eventually recall the loans. Problem is these debt recovery firms once they smell a cheap profit will start this wholesale. This is going to be carnage if so.

Yes - because loans need to be repaid and HMRC (who will likely always be the biggest creditor given that Trusts aren't being used anymore) will want the tax that should have been paid.

That post seems to be the first of the schemes where the liquidator is chasing the money (and liquidators are going to be far harder to avoid as they will have the law on their side).

[regron]

Yes - because loans need to be repaid and HMRC (who will likely always be the biggest creditor given that Trusts aren't being used anymore) will want the tax that should have been paid.

That post seems to be the first of the schemes where the liquidator is chasing the money (and liquidators are going to be far harder to avoid as they will have the law on their side).

Could there not be situations though wherby the trusts would be the biggest creditor, for loans which haven't been repaid? Assuming the sums make that so. Just thinking in insolvency situations when an IVA may well be more beneficial to Bankruptcy. This would rely on the 70% voting rule, and it would probably be best to try and ensure HMRC were not the biggest creditor, as they have a habit of ignoring the fact an IVA would bring in more money than BR. Just a thought.

[eek]

Could there not be situations though wherby the trusts would be the biggest creditor, for loans which haven't been repaid? Assuming the sums make that so. Just thinking in insolvency situations when an IVA may well be more beneficial to Bankruptcy. This would rely on the 70% voting rule, and it would probably be best to try and ensure HMRC were not the biggest creditor, as they have a habit of ignoring the fact an IVA would bring in more money than BR. Just a thought.

That doesn't help you - the company HMRC will be seeking the money from will be very different than the trust (were it to exist) and I suspect it doesn't

What we currently have at the moment are 2 entirely different set of issues that should not get confused.

There is the schemes where UK based companies are being liquidated and the liquidator is chasing up the loans to repay HMRC.

There is then the Felicitas scheme where Felicitas seem to be chasing up money for the IoM trusts who previously loaned out the money received.

And I suspect there is very little cross over between the 2 types in a way that works out for anyone...

[lowpaidworker]

Yes - because loans need to be repaid and HMRC (who will likely always be the biggest creditor given that Trusts aren't being used anymore) will want the tax that should have been paid.

That post seems to be the first of the schemes where the liquidator is chasing the money (and liquidators are going to be far harder to avoid as they will have the law on their side).

but in some if not most cases HMRC have taken or demanded the tax from the end user (employee). They cant then demand tax on the same money ??

[webberg]

Yes - because loans need to be repaid and HMRC (who will likely always be the biggest creditor given that Trusts aren't being used anymore) will want the tax that should have been paid.

Let me ask a simple question.

In many schemes, HMRC, having failed to chase the employer, is looking to the employee for the alleged tax due.

In cases such as this, we see the alleged employer being chased with the consequence that liquidators, working on the instructions of HMRC for a debt that has no proof of being due.

In effect, HMRC has an unproven debt and is using the liquidator as a crowbar.

Where is the consistency in HMRC's position?

Where is the fairness?

[lowpaidworker]

thanks I guess HMRC have more control over the UK based companies so can enforce closure.

I was more referring the offshore trusts like Felicitas where I guess more of these schemes exist. Wonder if well start to a lot of these trusts selling the loan book and then the new owners try to recall them.

[eek]

Let me ask a simple question.

In many schemes, HMRC, having failed to chase the employer, is looking to the employee for the alleged tax due.

In cases such as this, we see the alleged employer being chased with the consequence that liquidators, working on the instructions of HMRC for a debt that has no proof of being due.

In effect, HMRC has an unproven debt and is using the liquidator as a crowbar.

Where is the consistency in HMRC's position?

Where is the fairness?

Looking at the Andrew Sacco's latest https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...t=#post2820012 is what we are talking about.

The liquidator has identified loans worth £7.1m that he can recover while there is £10.5m owed and there is HMRC on top - now Ian could probably tell us the accurate figures but they aren't in the public domain.

And in this case the issue is that the liquidator has identified that the loans are coming due (section 4.21 in the liquidator's update from March see https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/d...4a1b633da95fd6) so it's not surprising that the liquidator is trying to recover the money given the lack of information Mr Sacco has given them.

As for fairness as I'm sure most of the world would agree and as I continually tell my children - Life's unfair, deal with it.

And as I stated elsewhere I'm currently working on something that should make it easier for people to differentiate between complaint and none-complaint (tax scheme) umbrellas but I can't do anything to protect the terminally greedy...

[eek]

thanks I guess HMRC have more control over the UK based companies so can enforce closure.

I was more referring the offshore trusts like Felicitas where I guess more of these schemes exist. Wonder if well start to a lot of these trusts selling the loan book and then the new owners try to recall them.

Trustees should do what is best for the beneficiaries of the trust - the issue really only comes about when those beneficiaries change....

[rnanco]

Hello, I found these statements in my Loan agreement. Has anyone else seen anything similar?


3. Repayment
3.1. The loan shall become due and payable one month after the service of a written demand by the Lender on the Borrower, on the borrower reaching his 70th birthday, or on the death of the
borrower, whichever is sooner.
3.2. The loan must be repaid in Sterling; repayment in any other currency will not be accepted.

4. Event of Default
4.1. There shall be an Event of Default if:
4.1.1. the Borrower fails to pay the loan on the due date; or
4.1.2. the Borrower suspends payment of his debts or is unable or admits inability to pay his debts as they fall due or (without having given written notice to the Lender of his intention so to do and
received their consent) proposes or enters into any composition or other arrangement for the benefit of his creditors generally or any of creditors.

[eek]

Hello, I found these statements in my Loan agreement. Has anyone else seen anything similar?


3. Repayment
3.1. The loan shall become due and payable one month after the service of a written demand by the Lender on the Borrower, on the borrower reaching his 70th birthday, or on the death of the
borrower, whichever is sooner.
3.2. The loan must be repaid in Sterling; repayment in any other currency will not be accepted.

4. Event of Default
4.1. There shall be an Event of Default if:
4.1.1. the Borrower fails to pay the loan on the due date; or
4.1.2. the Borrower suspends payment of his debts or is unable or admits inability to pay his debts as they fall due or (without having given written notice to the Lender of his intention so to do and
received their consent) proposes or enters into any composition or other arrangement for the benefit of his creditors generally or any of creditors.

and you agreed to the first part of clause 3.1? and indeed