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

[happychap]

New contact from Felicitas

Anyone else receive a nice email + text + Letter with this information

"On Thursday 28th January 2021, the county court at Doncaster considered the first case about debts to
Felicitas. The hearing followed the debtor’s failure to respond to any of the letters sent to him by Felicitas,
until we served a statutory demand on him. The judge ordered the debtor to pay Felicitas’ costs of £XXX.
We have not yet asked a court to order the debtor to pay the debt itself, which is a substantial sum. As a
responsible lender, we are giving all our debtors every opportunity to settle what they owe at a discount,
prior to enforcement. All we ask today is that debtors contact us with reasonable proposals"

Agin offering 10% pay by 28th Feb and it all goes away?

[GregRickshaw]

I hear what you're saying.

Maybe I'm just the untrusting type of guy.

So you have the letter from your lawyer, and then a company comes along proving that they actually have the debt from the Trust and that Felicitas was full of tulip.

Then what, the lawyer's letter ain't going to help you is it.

Well yes, if for instance another supposed 'real' legal owner comes out then yip not much you can about that, other than have the lawyer make the original supposed 'real' owners agree to return all monies paid back, should it be proved the one currently chasing didn't or don't legally own the loan.

This discussion could go on forever in What if land

So I'm done.

[happychap]

Wishful thinking

You don't get to know, you're right

So you make sure the settlement letter has all of those things covered. Hence the lawyer.

I hear what you're saying.

Maybe I'm just the untrusting type of guy.

So you have the letter from your lawyer, and then a company comes along proving that they actually have the debt from the Trust and that Felicitas was full of tulip.

Then what, the lawyer's letter ain't going to help you is it.

[GregRickshaw]

I hear what you're saying but how do you know the loans were purchased by Felicitas legally and that you may settle with a fancy letter only to be pursued by Company x 12 months from now for the same loans?

You don't get to know, you're right

So you make sure the settlement letter has all of those things covered. Hence the lawyer.

[happychap]

Question

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 a specialist, in this case, it's all about the wording of the document.

I hear what you're saying but how do you know the loans were purchased by Felicitas legally and that you may settle with a fancy letter only to be pursued by Company x 12 months from now for the same loans?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.