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

[terrythomas]

All that points towards these trusts being revocable which means that its possible for the beneficiaries to be changed. Which means that where I previously thought this was just the managers trying to recover some running costs, I now suspect its the management creating new beneficiaries (or at least removing a lot of the previous ones) and going for a money grab.

Are the trustees acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries by removing them from the revocable trust? It doesn't seem so!

[eek]

1) remove original beneficiaries
2) add new beneficiaries (eg. the instigators of the money grab)
3) screw original beneficiaries

That will go down well with a court!

I suspect it's more

1) Start with a few beneficiaries
2) Add others (the people using the scheme)
3) Remove (some of) the others

but I don't think a court will actually care provided it was done correctly following the processes documented within the deeds.

[DealorNoDeal]

Are the trustees acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries by removing them from the revocable trust? It doesn't seem so!

I can't help feeling that there is a fair amount of conjecture and speculation going on here.

Also, there are no real experts (trust lawyers) here.

[MrO666]

1) remove original beneficiaries
2) add new beneficiaries (eg. the instigators of the money grab)
3) screw original beneficiaries

That will go down well with a court!

As tulip as it is, it doesn't matter what a court might morally think about it, providing it was a legal sound approach then that's all that would matter I'd say.

To be clear, I'm certainly not saying anyone should or should not settle, I'm just trying to play devils advocate that's all.

[Fred Bloggs]

Seems to me, these people in the IoM are very smart people. By going for mediation rather than full blown court case they're minimising their risk, maximising their chance of a decent return and still have the courts to go to should they desire. If I were sitting in this boat, my concern would have been ratcheted up somewhat. Of course, it might all be a big bluff.

[DealorNoDeal]

Were they loans?

I think that's a question a court would have to consider.

Is it enough that a piece of paper says something is a loan? Even if, in reality, it was a sham?

As we all know, from IR35, just having something written on a piece of paper doesn't make it so.

[eek]

Were they loans?

I think that's a question a court would have to consider.

Is it enough that a piece of paper says something is a loan? Even if, in reality, it was a sham?

As we all know, from IR35, just having something written on a piece of paper doesn't make it so.

read what Webberg has said in the past - if you get money in your account and you don’t have paperwork explaining how it got there, it’s a “loan” as that’s how trusts work.

So I would not be operating on the basis that they have to proof it was a loan, you need to work on the basis that you need to find evidence that it was not a loan

now you may hit lucky and the judge may question the validity of the loan but it’s just as likely that he will accept, yes it was a loan and it’s up to you to prove otherwise.

If you are sane you don’t go to court / mediation with a single argument you go armed with multiple arguments so find paperwork and don’t assume 1 magic bullet will fix this for you

[DealorNoDeal]

read what Webberg has said in the past - if you get money in your account and you don’t have paperwork explaining how it got there, it’s a “loan” as that’s how trusts work.

So I would not be operating on the basis that they have to proof it was a loan, you need to work on the basis that you need to find evidence that it was not a loan

Surely, if a trust pays money to a beneficiary, the default position would be it's a distribution?

[happychap]

Follow the money

Surely, if a trust pays money to a beneficiary, the default position would be it's a distribution?

My simply understanding was the following

Contract agreed with Trust / Contractor and company - Contractor raises invoice (for work carried out) - Invoice sent by Trust - Company pays the invoice to the Trust - Trust then takes there 6% - Trust then pays the contractor 10% - Trust pays the contractor a so-called loan amount

Surely the court would be interested to know how the Trust got the money to pay the contractor the so-called loan?


I still have all written documents/invoices raised and I also have the payment trail from the company to the Trust. Maybe the court should ask the trust if they paid taxes on the money recieved from companies?

[piebaps]

Surely, if a trust pays money to a beneficiary, the default position would be it's a distribution?

The payment from the trust to the beneficiary will be whatever it was described as in the initial sign up documents. The recurring message is put them to proof. Make them provide the sign up documents which set out how the scheme worked and then make them show that they have legitimately acquired the loan debt.