• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

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

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by RayTrew View Post
    This matter was brought to my attention recently and whilst I don't want to add to peoples woes, what has taken place has very serious consequences and will add insult to injury. Under normal circumstances, the only person who can call in loans is the Trustees of the Trust and not scheme providers as suggested. If a scheme provider had ultimate control over a Trust which I find hard to believe, it would have made the whole Trust a sham from the very outset. The whole ethos of EBT's, Discretionary Trusts etc is to have independent Trustees, who no one can assert influence or control over. If a Trustee in their wisdom called in outstanding loans which I can see some very good reasons for doing so, which I will elaborate on a little later, then those monies would accumulate in the Trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries. So in effect, anything that gets paid in will find its way back to the beneficiary. It goes without saying the Trustees would in such circumstances, levy a small charge for doing so to cover their administration and banking costs, but I would expect even in a worst-case scenario 99.5% of those monies being returned. However, I am given to understand with these Felicitas loans, that the Trustees either sold the loan book or assigned it to Felicitas, which in itself raises several issues because at all times Trustees have to act in the best interests of beneficiaries and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out they have done so in this circumstance. I believe these Trustees who incidentally are a Top 10 firm of Accountants, have left themselves open to litigation for the pecuniary losses suffered by the beneficiaries. This now brings me back to my opening paragraph when I referred to adding to peoples woes. In my opinion, the actions of the Trustees have caused an Exit Event and as many of you will be aware, that will give rise to an IHT charge being levied by HMRC. So in effect not only will one have to pay the loan charge you will now face an IHT charge on top. The same in the case of loans that are written off. This obviously doesn't take account of any monies one eventually pays Felicitas and make no bones about that, despite what they are doing is despicable and unscrupulous, the fact remains those loans are real loans and are payable upon demand, albeit if you have received no notifications of interest or sums outstanding, then they may well fall outside the statute of limitations. Now I will return to the point I made about there being merit in the Trustees actually calling in the loans. As I eluded to earlier the money has to get paid back out to the beneficiaries and in normal circumstance any distribution received from a Trust you would have to account on the Trust pages of SA on SA107 and it would give rise to a tax charge. However, I do believe that these monies do not give rise to a charge as the monies would have already been taxed under the loan charge and the Revenue can't tax the same monies twice. I have actually sought clearance from HMRC for clarification on this point because this would put an end to the threat of any unscrupulous opportunist trying to make money from peoples misery by calling in loans.
    Duly saved so that when called out for the load of tosh this post is, the OP won't be able to go back and edit it.

    Leave a comment:


  • RayTrew
    replied
    This matter was brought to my attention recently and whilst I don't want to add to peoples woes, what has taken place has very serious consequences and will add insult to injury. Under normal circumstances, the only person who can call in loans is the Trustees of the Trust and not scheme providers as suggested. If a scheme provider had ultimate control over a Trust which I find hard to believe, it would have made the whole Trust a sham from the very outset. The whole ethos of EBT's, Discretionary Trusts etc is to have independent Trustees, who no one can assert influence or control over. If a Trustee in their wisdom called in outstanding loans which I can see some very good reasons for doing so, which I will elaborate on a little later, then those monies would accumulate in the Trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries. So in effect, anything that gets paid in will find its way back to the beneficiary. It goes without saying the Trustees would in such circumstances, levy a small charge for doing so to cover their administration and banking costs, but I would expect even in a worst-case scenario 99.5% of those monies being returned. However, I am given to understand with these Felicitas loans, that the Trustees either sold the loan book or assigned it to Felicitas, which in itself raises several issues because at all times Trustees have to act in the best interests of beneficiaries and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out they have not done so in this circumstance. I believe these Trustees who incidentally are a Top 10 firm of Accountants, have left themselves open to litigation for the pecuniary losses suffered by the beneficiaries. This now brings me back to my opening paragraph when I referred to adding to peoples woes. In my opinion, the actions of the Trustees have caused an Exit Event and as many of you will be aware, that will give rise to an IHT charge being levied by HMRC. So in effect not only will one have to pay the loan charge you will now face an IHT charge on top. The same in the case of loans that are written off. This obviously doesn't take account of any monies one eventually pays Felicitas and make no bones about that, despite what they are doing is despicable and unscrupulous, the fact remains those loans are real loans and are payable upon demand, albeit if you have received no notifications of interest or sums outstanding, then they may well fall outside the statute of limitations. Now I will return to the point I made about there being merit in the Trustees actually calling in the loans. As I eluded to earlier the money has to get paid back out to the beneficiaries and in normal circumstance any distribution received from a Trust you would have to account on the Trust pages of SA on SA107 and it would give rise to a tax charge. However, I do believe that these monies do not give rise to a charge as the monies would have already been taxed under the loan charge and the Revenue can't tax the same monies twice. I have actually sought clearance from HMRC for clarification on this point because this would put an end to the threat of any unscrupulous opportunist trying to make money from peoples misery by calling in loans.
    Last edited by RayTrew; 13 September 2021, 13:36.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Monkeypower View Post
    Thanks eek, totally agree as it has helped me.

    Do not settle, not even a penny, let a judge decide, remember the scheme providers will also be putting their heads above the parapet if it came to that!

    This thread and other threads in the past would put off other providers !
    Well it will definitely show that if a scheme provider is going to try to recover the "loans" they will need deep pockets and will actually go to court to enforce the loans - as Felicitas don't even seem to have had that many takers when asking for £450-750 in return for writing the whole loan off.

    As we've already shown people how to handle the other method Felicitas have (very dubiously) tried to use and stopped them for working.
    Last edited by eek; 9 September 2021, 14:51.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by Monkeypower View Post
    Thanks eek, totally agree as it has helped me.

    Do not settle, not even a penny, let a judge decide, remember the scheme providers will also be putting their heads above the parapet if it came to that!

    This thread and other threads in the past would put off other providers !
    The public good that CUK has acheived by being here and facilitating this and many other discussions can't be measured. I don't think it's too strong a view to say that CUK has literally saved lives along with probably millions of ££££s for many people. Even people who never heard of CUK. Long may it continue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monkeypower
    replied
    Thanks eek, totally agree as it has helped me.

    Do not settle, not even a penny, let a judge decide, remember the scheme providers will also be putting their heads above the parapet if it came to that!

    This thread and other threads in the past would put off other providers !

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by BenDover View Post
    If Felicitas are calling back loans would a thread such as this not highlight to other Trust owners that they could do the same? If this gets any kind of backing and the result is that people who used them have to repay the loan then that will make the actual loan charge look like a walk in the park. If it were me I would stop this thread before things accelerate and get a whole lot worse.
    Why?

    HMRC have already announced that they won't stop other trust owners from doing similar

    And why should we close a thread that is helping people who are impacted by Felicitas on the off chance that it may stop another trust owner from attempting something similar (spoiler - it wouldn't).

    Leave a comment:


  • BenDover
    replied
    If Felicitas are calling back loans would a thread such as this not highlight to other Trust owners that they could do the same? If this gets any kind of backing and the result is that people who used them have to repay the loan then that will make the actual loan charge look like a walk in the park. If it were me I would stop this thread before things accelerate and get a whole lot worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wtaf
    replied
    Mine is exactly the same. There is nothing sophisticated about that bunch of clowns.

    Leave a comment:


  • GotScrewed
    replied
    Yeah, mine had that too, presumably all did?

    this is their definition of ‘proof’, effectively a mailmerge :P that anybody could have knocked up….

    Leave a comment:


  • DanJackiels
    replied
    While I was debating taking up their latest offer, I re read the letter and noticed this bit at the end that was stuck on as a "schedule". Which made me not proceed.

    There is a table with Date of Agreement/Manner of Consent/Extract of terms, and they have bucketed the loans into two groups, which are split as follows.

    Group one:
    Date of Agreement - Not Machine Readable
    Manner of Consent - Consent either indicated by signature on paper agreement or implied by actions.
    Extract of terms - Each Loan shall be repayable on or before the thirtieth anniversary of its being made.


    Group two:
    Date of Agreement - None
    Manner of Consent - Terms were not agreed.
    Extract of terms - In the absence of agreement to the contrary, the sum is repayable on demand. However, this is not a demand.


    Has anyone else got something like this?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X