Confirmation of settlement

[Superfly]

Superfly, can I ask if your loans were through Sanzar? If so, can I ask how you got confirmation that your loans were written off?

Yes they were through Sanzar. I have a letter of confirmation from Felicitas directed to myself that the loans have been written off.

As Felicitas never proved to me that they have any connection with the 'loans', I do not know how much credence to lend to their claims of writing off the 'loan'.

Additionally, my P11D that Sanzar gave me stated that the loans had been discharged at the end of the tax year all those years ago.

Finally, the purported original trust that my Sanzar 'loans' was supposedly distributed from (Professional Independent Trustees) was not incorporated until 15 June 2011, three months after everyone stopped using Sanzar.

So there are holes all over this Sanzar business. So I don't put too much mind to Felicitas's claims to write-off the loans. As far as I am concerned, best case they were never put through a trust as loans, worst case they were put through but they were reconciled as discharged at the end of the tax year.

As Felicitas has not satisfactorily proven to me that they have any connection with the 'loans', there is no onus on me to report the write-off to HMRC and consequently there is no IHT fallout from the claimed write-off. This is an important technicality that a few advisers are advising their clients, including my own.

[webberg]

The post above from Mr "Superfly" needs some commentary.

First, in establishing whether the loan is "real" you need to look at the creation of the obligation first. Was the lender able to make the loan? Was it made in cash? Did the borrower understand their obligations?

In the case of the Sanzar loans I suspect that the alleged lender was the then "employer" - which may or may not have purported to have been a trustee of the Sanzar trust.

Second, the loan - as a financial asset - may have been subjected to certain events since its creation. In the case of Sanzar that's probably two significant events. One was the claimed "repayment" at the end of each tax year and the other was the later claimed transfer to Felicitas.

The original loans were in a trust and formed the basis of a "life interest" for individuals. These life interests were subsequently sold to the Sanzar partnership (which was also the settlor) and therefore the individual liability disappeared. I suggest that this sale is why the liability of the individual no longer exists and why Felicitas was unable to pursue the loan.

The transfer/sale/assignment of the loan to Felicitas is - in light of the above - not that significant. Even if the loan carried any obligations on the borrower however, the fact - and it is a fact - that the trustee (a successor to the original trustee and therefore date of formation irrelevant) assigned the loans to Felicitas, does NOT rob the loan of its power to be recalled.

You may be able to claim that the trustee was acting outside its remit, unlawfully, immorally, etc. I'm not a trust lawyer and have no opinion. All of that however is irrelevant as the legal rights around the loan still then belong to (in this instance) Felicitas.

Even if the trustee was outside its remit, what is the remedy? It will certainly not be a reversal of the transaction. It is likely to be some sort of action against the trustee to restore the assets of the trust (assets that the trustee considers are worth nothing) and perhaps some legal costs.

There is an onus upon you to report repayments and write offs of loans. The online disclosure form included such information and if you completed that correctly, you will have noted this.

All of the above - and a much deeper legal, tax, trust and technical analysis - we completed in mid 2018 from existing materials. I've seen much here and elsewhere about the actions and morals of the parties involved, but little or nothing that actually matches the legal realities and ultimately in any discussion in court or with HMRC you MUST HAVE THE FACTS and not just the moral high ground.

The point at which you need these facts is here NOW.

If you have papers from back in the day - read them - understand them - use them to defend yourself from a woefully ill informed HMRC.

If you do not, then read this forum but please - separate unsubstantiated commentary from real facts.

[contractor1981]

My settlement has been rejected by HMRC on grounds that I didn't attach the appendix to the signed scanned copy I sent. Really in deep trouble now.

(Created a new thread on this but not sure what happened to it ? Admin can you please help)

[SouthKD]

You say so but still no proof.

[
All of that however is irrelevant as the legal rights around the loan still then belong to (in this instance) Felicitas.
[/QUOTE]

Can I ask Webberg, should Felicitas not be providing evidence to us directly that they do legally hold the rights? I have seen nothing of the sort. It could be anyone asking me for this money.

I have all my paper work and understand my situation. I just want them to prove they have the legal right, and I will settle things once and for all.

[webberg]

[
All of that however is irrelevant as the legal rights around the loan still then belong to (in this instance) Felicitas.

Can I ask Webberg, should Felicitas not be providing evidence to us directly that they do legally hold the rights? I have seen nothing of the sort. It could be anyone asking me for this money.

I have all my paper work and understand my situation. I just want them to prove they have the legal right, and I will settle things once and for all.[/QUOTE]

Yes they should be asked to prove that a valid assignment of the legal rights has been executed.

No proof means that Felicitas probably has no right to stand in the shoes of the original lender.

You do need to follow that provenance trail all the way back to the original loan.