Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters

[MrO666]

Based on this forum, it would appear that 7 months after W28 sent "pay up or we'll send in the heavies" letters to some people, nothing has happened at all (and I doubt anyone paid up either).

All very odd.

[GoneSurfing]

You are making no sense at all. What tax would be due then if HMRC were not taxing the loans? Very little. HMRC took the loans as payment and taxed us on the loans as they were deemed earnings not a loan.

The money flowed like this:

Client --(1)--> Management Company --(2)--> Trust --(3)--> You.

Rangers found that (2) was taxable, not (3).

[GoneSurfing]

So you don’t have a demand for repayment of your loan? Why are you in this thread then?

I didn't realise it was a ticketed event that you were gatekeeping, but if you must know I'm here because of morbid curiosity and that fact that I might very well be subject to a recall at some stage.

[cojak]

I didn't realise it was a ticketed event that you were gatekeeping, but if you must know I'm here because of morbid curiosity and that fact that I might very well be subject to a recall at some stage.

I’m a mod, I can challenge anyone. And recalls are what happens to loans…

[GoneSurfing]

recalls are what happens to loans…

Exactly.

'Repayable on demand' was a common clause in the loan agreements but the defence isn't that 'these aren't loans because HMRC taxed them'.

[GregRickshaw]

Exactly.

'Repayable on demand' was a common clause in the loan agreements but the defence isn't that 'these aren't loans because HMRC taxed them'.

No one is using that as a defence.
The rest of us are quite satisfied with dividing the two.
HRMC declared them as income, that's really the end of that story
Bodgit & Scarper want the money they loaned out back, that's the beginning of that story.

[VillageIdiotDan]

The money flowed like this:

Client --(1)--> Management Company --(2)--> Trust --(3)--> You.

Rangers found that (2) was taxable, not (3).

Hello, that's a really useful distinction - thank you.

Can I ask a naive question: if there's a chance of the Trust recalling the loan (3) from the contractor, does the opportunity not flow up? i.e. the money the Client (in this instance I see that as my limited company?) to the Mgt Company (1) can't of just disappeared right, so that liability could be claimed back by the Client?

[Fred Bloggs]

Hello, that's a really useful distinction - thank you.

Can I ask a naive question: if there's a chance of the Trust recalling the loan (3) from the contractor, does the opportunity not flow up? i.e. the money the Client (in this instance I see that as my limited company?) to the Mgt Company (1) can't of just disappeared right, so that liability could be claimed back by the Client?

The money didn't disappear. You agreed to give it via the scheme operator to the trustees less the scheme's charges. The trustees then loaned the money to you. That would be the normal route the money took. The money can be both a loan and income at the same time.

[MrO666]

Over 8 months now since W28 contacted some people, and to the best of my knowledge, nothing further (well not for the people I know who were initially contacted).........

[GregRickshaw]

Someone posted on the HMRC Enquiry section

FS Capital judgment on validity of assignment of contractor loans

No idea how to link it....sorry

Which although doesn't mean it's totally over, it does look very likely the passing of debts where trusts are involved is either not allowed or very difficult.

May mean a flurry of activity or the final demise of such actions.

I see it as good news for those still caught up