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

[piebaps]

Maybe the court should ask the trust if they paid taxes on the money received from companies?

An Isle of Man trust with no Isle of Man resident beneficiaries and no Isle of Man income has no Isle of Man tax liability. This is why the IOM was used in the chain!

https://www.gov.im/media/511752/pn14107.pdf

[cwah]

I found out on my loan contract they wrote my name wrong.

If the judge is indeed just looking at the fact, and just the fact between the trust and me... Then surely it's completely void?

There is no loan agreement between me and the trust!

[MrO666]

I found out on my loan contract they wrote my name wrong.

If the judge is indeed just looking at the fact, and just the fact between the trust and me... Then surely it's completely void?

There is no loan agreement between me and the trust!

I have no idea on the legality of that, however I'd want more than that argument in my back pocket if I were going to court.

The fact that the money went into your bank account, without you ever disputing why it was there, would, I assume trump the fact that there was a spelling error in the documentation.

If your bank put £10k into your account that you didn't ask for, would you contact the bank and ask what it was ?

Again.....I'm just playing devils advocate.

[WoffleCopter]

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.

The payments made from IQ in my case were accompanied by electronic remittance advices.

These were worded:

"We have sent you a loan payment of £####.## today."

Usually amounts transferred from a lender to a debtor are referred to as "advances". "Loan payment" is an oxymoron.

One legal definition of "payment" is:

"Payment, the performance of an obligation to pay money. A person under such an obligation is called a debtor, and a person to whom the obligation is owed is called a creditor. "

payment | Definition & Examples | Britannica

IMO this would imply that IQ are debtors and you are the creditor if no signed contract exists spelling out the relationship.

You could argue that your toil was the advance and they were repaying it to you.

Of course, we are getting into complex legal territory here which can only be resolved fully in a court room.

[eek]

I know I've been away for a few days and I know you don't like what I say but don't publish things about Dynamic and Garraway in public forums as you just give Felicitas more time to create counter arguments for the evidence you display.

There was a reason why Big Group and NTRT had forums where membership was restricted to verified members. This forum is public and useful as a guiding point as to where to turn to for help it's not a place to discuss a strategy for the upcoming battle.

And my advice here has always been very simple:-

1) Assume its a loan from a trust so find all evidence that shows it's not a loan.
2) Just because the word loan isn't mentioned doesn't mean it's not a loan. A loan payment isn't an unusyal phrase (loans can be paid in installments, say if you are self building a property or the loan is subject to other stage criteria).
3) Just because someone said that the loan doesn't need to be repaid may not be enough. Was that person authorised to say that - do you have other evidence.

4) Equally don't argue it both wasn't a loan and it's a loan that doesn't need to be repaid in the same argument. If you have an argument it's doesn't need to be repaid use that as an argument for it potentially not being a loan

a coherent argument with clear presentation will be everything here which is one reason why you need an independent 3rd party handling any mediation.

5) And this also goes back to point 3. The important bits are still

i) do you have all your paperwork and a coherent story within that paperwork (see points 2 and 4)
ii) if you have paperwork that the money wasn't a loan find other paperwork to show the person saying it wasn't a loan was an authorised agent of the scheme
iii)does Felicitas have the evidence to show they have the right to demand payment,

[cojak]

Posts hidden.

[WoffleCopter]

I know I've been away for a few days and I know you don't like what I say but don't publish things about Dynamic and Garraway in public forums as you just give Felicitas more time to create counter arguments for the evidence you display.

There was a reason why Big Group and NTRT had forums where membership was restricted to verified members. This forum is public and useful as a guiding point as to where to turn to for help it's not a place to discuss a strategy for the upcoming battle.

And my advice here has always been very simple:-

1) Assume its a loan from a trust so find all evidence that shows it's not a loan.
2) Just because the word loan isn't mentioned doesn't mean it's not a loan. A loan payment isn't an unusyal phrase (loans can be paid in installments, say if you are self building a property or the loan is subject to other stage criteria).
3) Just because someone said that the loan doesn't need to be repaid may not be enough. Was that person authorised to say that - do you have other evidence.

4) Equally don't argue it both wasn't a loan and it's a loan that doesn't need to be repaid in the same argument. If you have an argument it's doesn't need to be repaid use that as an argument for it potentially not being a loan

a coherent argument with clear presentation will be everything here which is one reason why you need an independent 3rd party handling any mediation.

5) And this also goes back to point 3. The important bits are still

i) do you have all your paperwork and a coherent story within that paperwork (see points 2 and 4)
ii) if you have paperwork that the money wasn't a loan find other paperwork to show the person saying it wasn't a loan was an authorised agent of the scheme
iii)does Felicitas have the evidence to show they have the right to demand payment,

I agree with most of this apart from the "loan payment" bit. Loans are usually said to be "released" in instalments, not "paid". I have worked in the lending industry and never seen that choice of words. Perhaps you can furnish some evidence to substantiate your claim.

[eek]

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?

This is why I talk about Schrodinger (as in the cat) money.

To HMRC and tax tribunals the entire transaction chain is what is used to determine if tax was due.

In a Civil court case regarding the trust - it's possible to argue that nothing prior to the trust receiving money is relevant to the case and the only part that matters is the loan from the trust to the person who received the loan.

Courts can pick and choose what bits they deem relevant and what bits they deem completely irrelevant.

[eek]

I agree with most of this apart from the "loan payment" bit. Loans are usually said to be "released" in instalments, not "paid". I have worked in the lending industry and never seen that choice of words. Perhaps you can furnish some evidence to substantiate your claim.

Semantics

But given the argument that you are trying to pursue what evidence can you provide that you loaned the trust £x,000 and if you can why was the money repaid to a different bank account (belonging to a different third party) from which the loan was "sent"...

[WoffleCopter]

Semantics

But given the argument that you are trying to pursue what evidence can you provide that you loaned the trust £x,000 and if you can why was the money repaid to a different bank account (belonging to a different third party) from which the loan was "sent"...

Semantics are important when you get down to this level.

As I said you could argue that your toil was the "advance". I could ask back the same question, why is Felicitas asking for payment to a different company than their own account if they have bought the "loan" but I don't think there is much more to be gained from you and I debating such questions on a public forum.