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

[eek]

Is that article right? It says HMRC can still chase for payment after bankruptcy....

Only by taking belongings - which I suspect comes from their old customs powers so would be impossible to change legally...

What they can't do is attach court orders to take money directly - so just don't buy a fancy car outright or expensive jewelry.

[regron]

Is that article right? It says HMRC can still chase for payment after bankruptcy....

From the advice I have received, any creditor can chase if you haven't listed the debt in the BR order. I assume it shouldn't be a problem as long as the dates work out and there is proof the debt was active at the time of BR.
That is why I think it would be a good idea for the person to contact their OR and sort it out.

[Fantastic]

From the advice I have received, any creditor can chase if you haven't listed the debt in the BR order. I assume it shouldn't be a problem as long as the dates work out and there is proof the debt was active at the time of BR.
That is why I think it would be a good idea for the person to contact their OR and sort it out.

Thank you, I have popped an email to the OR, advising them I am being chased for a debt that was previous to my Bankruptcy order and that they ignored my notification of said Bankruptcy.

[saptastic]

Agree the 80% take home ain't bad but now we are all looking at the following.

The contractor paid by Employer 100% or £1
The contractor pays 6% to Scheme Provider -£0.06
The contractor pays some Tax and NI based on min wage -£0.14
The contractor takes home £0.80

Some Years later

HMRC takes the full tax as the so-called loans are income -£0.25
The contractor now pays back the loans to Feliciats -£1

mmm that leaves me -£0.45

As I said before wish I had a time machine

Sadly a clear summary here.

[creativity]

Sadly a clear summary here.

Indeed a good summary.

But remember the payments were never a loan, it's a disguised renumeration scheme, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what the paper work says, or if you signed it (or not).
So if you've paid the tax and settled (accepted the payments as disguised remuneration) with HMRC you've won the case.
Just be careful you don't fall prey to underhand stealth SDs and deal with them as you would any expensive parking fine.

[Fred Bloggs]

Indeed a good summary.

But remember the payments were never a loan, it's a disguised renumeration scheme, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what the paper work says, or if you signed it (or not).
So if you've paid the tax and settled (accepted the payments as disguised remuneration) with HMRC you've won the case.
Just be careful you don't fall prey to underhand stealth SDs and deal with them as you would any expensive parking fine.

I would advise anyone reading this that they also read the extensive number of posts by a couple of respected posters here explaining why money paid from tax avoidance schemes can be loans and income both at the same time.

[DavidD]

Indeed a good summary.

But remember the payments were never a loan, it's a disguised renumeration scheme, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what the paper work says, or if you signed it (or not).
So if you've paid the tax and settled (accepted the payments as disguised remuneration) with HMRC you've won the case.
Just be careful you don't fall prey to underhand stealth SDs and deal with them as you would any expensive parking fine.

Spot on - this is 100% correct and is common sense and will prove to be right if any of these cases go to court. You'll be subject to much fear mongering here but this is the bottom line.

[eek]

Spot on - this is 100% correct and is common sense and will prove to be right if any of these cases go to court. You'll be subject to much fear mongering here but this is the bottom line.

Sorry that is wrong - if you are a member of a scheme that used trusts YOU do have loans because that is the way trusts can give you access to the money within the trust (they lend it to you).

The only unknown is whether they will ask for it back and whether they have the paperwork with a complete trail of who has the right to manage the trust's money.

Checking your posts it seems that you think that because HMRC are asking for money the trust is out of luck - and that just isn't the case.

HMRC look at the money the agency paid the company for the work you did and is asking for the tax on that money
HMRC doesn't care where the money went between the agency and you receiving it - it's looking at the overall transaction and saying this was taxable please pay that tax.

The trust is looking at the money it received it from the company and "lent" you.
The Trust isn't looking at the transaction as a whole it is looking at a very small part of it (its not asking how the money arrived into the trust, it's looking at the money it lent you from the trust's funds).

Now it's possible that the trust has screwed up in multiple ways and won't be able to claim the money back but don't assume that a court will look at the entire transaction. It may simply look at the very narrow argument of the trust and you as a (former) beneficiary of the trust and ignore the complete picture.

The answer for the latter bit is that we don't know what an IoM court will do here - if anyone thinks they have a definitive answer than they are either a fool or a lying.

[Whowouldhavethought]

Sorry that is wrong - if you are a member of a scheme that used trusts YOU do have loans because that is the way trusts can give you access to the money within the trust (they lend it to you).

The only unknown is whether they will ask for it back and whether they have the paperwork with a complete trail of who has the right to manage the trust's money.

Checking your posts it seems that you think that because HMRC are asking for money the trust is out of luck - and that just isn't the case.

HMRC look at the money the agency paid the company for the work you did and is asking for the tax on that money
HMRC doesn't care where the money went between the agency and you receiving it - it's looking at the overall transaction and saying this was taxable please pay that tax.

The trust is looking at the money it received it from the company and "lent" you.
The Trust isn't looking at the transaction as a whole it is looking at a very small part of it (its not asking how the money arrived into the trust, it's looking at the money it lent you from the trust's funds).

Now it's possible that the trust has screwed up in multiple ways and won't be able to claim the money back but don't assume that a court will look at the entire transaction. It may simply look at the very narrow argument of the trust and you as a (former) beneficiary of the trust and ignore the complete picture.

The answer for the latter bit is that we don't know what an IoM court will do here - if anyone thinks they have a definitive answer than they are either a fool or a lying.

As someone who has talked to multiple legal firms about this, please do listen to Eek. At no point has any of them said it's as simple as its disguised remuneration and that's the end of it - Each one has had a strategy in place to address the trust issue.

As much as a hard pill it may be to swallow - If you have been offered 5% in the past (and your "loan" wasn't massive), it may be cheaper to pay them that rather than go through the courts. I for one would rather do that and the courts go in the favor of the trustee, losing a few £k, than the courts go in favor of Felicitas and have to pay court costs and the "loans" back.

Yes it's a matter of principle, but it's also an exercise in damage limitation.

[GregRickshaw]

As someone who has talked to multiple legal firms about this, please do listen to Eek. At no point has any of them said it's as simple as its disguised remuneration and that's the end of it - Each one has had a strategy in place to address the trust issue.

As much as a hard pill it may be to swallow - If you have been offered 5% in the past (and your "loan" wasn't massive), it may be cheaper to pay them that rather than go through the courts. I for one would rather do that and the courts go in the favor of the trustee, losing a few £k, than the courts go in favor of Felicitas and have to pay court costs and the "loans" back.

Yes it's a matter of principle, but it's also an exercise in damage limitation.

100% on both things, listen to eek, and do what you need to do and feel comfortable with, my personal choice was settle.

If you do settle be sure to get a lawyer to look over your settlement document. Doesn't have to be specialist in this case it's all about the wording of the document.