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

[Monkeypower]

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 !

[Fred Bloggs]

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.

[eek]

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.

[RayTrew]

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.

[cojak]

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.

[eek]

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.

I can't be bothered to read it let alone correct it. If anyone else wants to go ahead but personally it's gibberish not worth responding to.

I do however note the phrase "I do believe" - while talking about HMRC and neither believe nor HMRC are anything to do with the issues discussed in this topic. It would be nice if HMRC were doing something to stop schemes from recovering "loans" but HMRC have explicitly said they won't help.

[RayTrew]

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.

Childish comment and totally without foundation but then again you and your cohort "Eek" often rubbish other peoples posts without any justification, so I shouldn't have expected anything different really. I came on here over 4 years ago warning people about asking Trusts to have their loans to be written off and the consequences they would face if they did so. A well-known poster on here said at that time I was talking "tosh" and didn't know what I was talking about, yet some months later that very same person was then advising people not to request loans to be written off and I wonder what that was. I can tell you why because I was right and I know what I am talking about. I don't care what you or "eek" think of my post or me personally. My intentions were honourable and my sole purpose was to alert people what to expect. I think what this company is doing is unscrupulous and totally unethical and If you don't want to heed my advice then that's your prerogative.

[eek]

Childish comment and totally without foundation but then again you and your cohort "Eek" often rubbish other peoples posts without any justification, so I shouldn't have expected anything different really. I came on here over 4 years ago warning people about asking Trusts to have their loans to be written off and the consequences they would face if they did so. A well-known poster on here said at that time I was talking "tosh" and didn't know what I was talking about, yet some months later that very same person was then advising people not to request loans to be written off and I wonder what that was. I can tell you why because I was right and I know what I am talking about. I don't care what you or "eek" think of my post or me personally. My intentions were honourable and my sole purpose was to alert people what to expect. I think what this company is doing is unscrupulous and totally unethical and If you don't want to heed my advice then that's your prerogative.

this topic is not about scheme members asking for their loans to be written off, it's about the bullying scheme members are being subjected to in an attempt by people unknown claiming to be the scheme administrators to collect money with malice

Now if you want to post comments like the one above could you go and do so in a more appropriate thread in the HMRC Scheme Enquiries section or even create a new thread.

But this particular thread is about Felicitas trying to force / bully / trick people into repaying "loans" from a particular set of schemes they have details of.

As for all your other comments -

1) you claim to have knowledge of this area yet we don't have any evidence to back things up
2) what I do know is that you haven't a clue what a paragraph is and that makes reading what you post virtually impossible so all I can do comment on the bits I can pick up
3) I do see what appears to be an attack on me for reasons unknown and some other poster from 4 years ago who isn't me who seems to have changed his mind over writing loans off).
4) However, given that there are a lot of reasons as to whether it's worth getting a loan written off or not I do wonder if there was nuancing in the situations (say different schemes) that you didn't pick up on.

[DealorNoDeal]

One thing I do agree with is that there is something highly dubious about Trustees flogging off the loan book to another party. I'd like to see them justify how that's in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

[eek]

One thing I do agree with is that there is something highly dubious about Trustees flogging off the loan book to another party. I'd like to see them justify how that's in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

1) we don't know if they have
2) remember my previous comments about open membership trusts and the risk that beneficiaries may be removeable.

3) the legality of flogging the loan book is surely something that would need to be tested in court (and in an IoM court given where the trust is based). And what is the one thing the people seeking repayment of the loans are seemingly doing everything and anything to avoid doing...