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

[eek]

Are felicitas pursuing this mediation to retrieve 100% of the loan value ? Or the 5% they’ve previously offered

I don't know but if you were going to court to ensure payment I would expect it to be the full amount (as anything else would need to be justified and that justification could damage the case)

And yes I know it's not what people want to hear but without evidence to the contrary nothing else makes sense (and looking back I did point this out back in August when I saw what the actual plan was and suggested that paying the 5% may be the better option).

[DealorNoDeal]

I don't know but if you were going to court to ensure payment I would expect it to be the full amount (as anything else would need to be justified and that justification could damage the case)

FWIW, I wouldn't fancy their chances. There is so much about these "loans" that just doesn't look like actual lending. It's clear for anyone to see that they were, in fact, disguised remuneration as part and parcel of a marketed tax avoidance scheme.

[eek]

FWIW, I wouldn't fancy their chances. There is so much about these "loans" that just doesn't look like actual lending. It's clear for anyone to see that they were, in fact, disguised remuneration as part and parcel of a marketed tax avoidance scheme.

That's the great unknown here -

1) we are talking about trusts rather than commercial lending - and the IoM laws about such things are impossible to identify (I have looked).
2) I don't know how much the fact it was a marketed tax avoidance scheme matters here. it's possible (I suspect likely) that that argument could be deemed completely irrelevant and only the connection between the trusts and the previous beneficiaries of the trust are important.
3) by the look of the IoM mediation rules the two parties get to pick the mediator. I suspect Felicitas know exactly who they would want the mediator to be and all the UK firms won't be so knowledgeable regarding the personal preferences and interests of the possible mediators.

Now I may be overly cynical and wrong here and I do know this is a money grab but it wouldn't surprise me if they managed to narrow down the argument enough to win the case..

[DealorNoDeal]

All good points.

The other thing Felicitas will be up against is that any IoM Judge will be mindful of the reputation of the Island. It's already a stain on the Island that it was home to so many avoidance schemes. It won't be easy to convince a Judge that these were genuine loans as opposed to payments dressed up to look like loans.

We've already seen this over here where increasingly Judges take a purposive approach, rather than a literal interpretation of the law, when it comes to tax avoidance. The "it was legal" argument just doesn't stack up anymore.

[eek]

All good points.

The other thing Felicitas will be up against is that any IoM Judge will be mindful of the reputation of the Island. It's already a stain on the Island that it was home to so many avoidance schemes. It won't be easy to convince a Judge that these were genuine loans as opposed to payments dressed up to look like loans.

We've already seen this over here where increasingly Judges take a purposive approach, rather than a literal interpretation of the law, when it comes to tax avoidance. The "it was legal" argument just doesn't stack up anymore.

On one level you have the reputation of the island on tax matters. You also need to think of the reputation of the island with regards to trust matters and those two reputations may result in very different results (tax is now an embarrassment but without trusts most of the IoM's wealth will disappear).

Equally I suspect the IoM law system to be a lot more old fashioned and to the letter of the law rather than a British tax tribunal which I believe is what you are actually talking about.

However this is also not a court case but mediation at a lower level - so reputation may not matter at all and my cynical hat is telling me that mediation is probably going to result in a worse result than a single grouped court case (where politics may be more important).

[piebaps]

This is a useful high level overview of Trust Law in the IOM https://www.worldservicesgroup.com/g...20of%20man.pdf

The Law itself can be viewed here Isle of Man Legislation - Home

Much however would depend on the trust deed itself. This sets out the powers and functions of a trustee. You would want a sight of that before making a call, and with hindsight of course, you should probably have read it before entering into the arrangements in the first place (although its easy to be smart now!).

I agree with greg though. These people won't be going anywhere near a Court and this is likely to be just another scare tactic.

[MrO666]

Out of interest, if someone did want to try a negotiated settlement with Felicitas over this, how would they go about it ?

I know of some people who received Gladstones letters and some who never received any letters, but did receive emails and SMS messages, which honestly looked more like spam.

The emails I've had sight of just don't instil much in the way of confidence that actually paying a sum to the listed account would 100% resolve the issue forever more.

I suspect that those perhaps with relatively small alleged loans (under £100k) would possibly be willing to try and reach a settlement if the approach to do so looked a lot more formal and final. I appreciate those who are potentially on the hook for far larger numbers may well not want or be able to settle though.

Also, does anyone genuinely know of anyone who has paid up and has received confirmation that the debt is now 100% settled ?

Everyone knows this is a shake-down, it just depends on ones level of risk with regards to how far they want to take it or whether you just want it all to end.

[DealorNoDeal]

I agree with greg though. These pirates won't be going anywhere near a Court and this is likely to be just another scare tactic.

That's what I reckon too.

[MrO666]

That's what I reckon too.

I suspect you're correct, however, if you're wrong and they were to take it to court, what then ?

It's been said numerous times now that whilst the world and his dog knows this is a shake down, any court wouldn't necessarily look at it that way. All they will look at will be the legal facts, regardless of whether those are unfair, skewed or down right devious. The facts will win, not what people think they did or didn't sign up for, that's largely irrelevant to a judge I would suspect.

I have absolutely no idea how good or bad the legal argument for both sides would be (and I'm steering well clear of such as I'm not qualified), all I'm saying is that it would be good for people to understand that position and make their own decisions based on that.

[eek]

I suspect you're correct, however, if you're wrong and they were to take it to court, what then ?

It's been said numerous times now that whilst the world and his dog knows this is a shake down, any court wouldn't necessarily look at it that way. All they will look at will be the legal facts, regardless of whether those are unfair, skewed or down right devious. The facts will win, not what people think they did or didn't sign up for, that's largely irrelevant to a judge I would suspect.

I have absolutely no idea how good or bad the legal argument for both sides would be (and I'm steering well clear of such as I'm not qualified), all I'm saying is that it would be good for people to understand that position and make their own decisions based on that.

My concern would be that the actual matter that a court would care about may literally be just the bit in Bold below

your work > xyz > trust > your bank account

which would be about the hardest thing to argue against...