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

[Nanas1]

What offensive did they do? I just see them sending email that I didn't answer...

Non Recorded delivery, No proof you've even received the letter........ THEY CAN RAM IT

[Fred Bloggs]

Non Recorded delivery, No proof you've even received the letter........ THEY CAN RAM IT

I think you will find that legal precedent is that if the sender has proof of posting a letter, the law assumes that it was received.

[Nanas1]

I think you will find that legal precedent is that if the sender has proof of posting a letter, the law assumes that it was received.

So how can they prove I have knowledge of their impending actions if the letter gets "Lost" in the post....... You can't admit what you don't know

[Fred Bloggs]

So how can they prove I have knowledge of their impending actions if the letter gets "Lost" in the post....... You can't admit what you don't know

You would need to prove the letter was lost in the post. You can't do that.

But the sender can prove they sent it. So, legal precedent is that you did receive it. That's been case law in the UK for a very long time. You'll get nowhere trying that argument.

Doing so under oath is perjury.

[Nanas1]

To HMRC it's a tax avoidance scheme, to the IoM court it's money from a trust that was lent to you and which the trust is seeking to be returned.

Where the money started off is completely irrelevant here - what is important is the steps from the point the money was in the trust and what happened to it after that.

Sadly (but very importantly as you need to understand this) how the money get to the trust is not going to be relevant to this court case.

But who funded the trust in the first place?? Wee did, or I certainly did in my case with the Invoices I submitted, A substantial fee was taken each month to facilitate this. Do we go after them for the return of the fees they charged us??
At the end of the day, without myself paying into said fund there would have been no money for them to loan out....

[Fred Bloggs]

But who funded the trust in the first place?? Wee did, or I certainly did in my case with the Invoices I submitted, A substantial fee was taken each month to facilitate this. Do we go after them for the return of the fees they charged us??
At the end of the day, without myself paying into said fund there would have been no money for them to loan out....

None of which is actually relevant to the fact that you have an outstanding loan that looks like it's going to be called in. That's all that really matters. The rest of the stuff up there is just a rant.

Calming down and an honest appraisal of the facts is what's required here.

[Nanas1]

None of which is actually relevant to the fact that you have an outstanding loan that looks like it's going to be called in. That's all that really matters. The rest of the stuff up there is just a rant.

Calming down and an honest appraisal of the facts is what's required here.

Looking back at my contract of employment through Garraway / Wisemove, the word loan is not mentioned once

[eek]

Looking back at my contract of employment through Garraway / Wisemove, the word loan is not mentioned once

And? The question is not how did the money get into the trust, it’s how the money got into your pocket from the trust.

You also need to understand the point about Schrödinger Money.

just because HMRC regard the money as income on which tax is due, the trust and (none tax tribunals) courts are perfectly able to regard the money the trust paid to you as a loan that is now due repayment

[Fred Bloggs]

Looking back at my contract of employment through Garraway / Wisemove, the word loan is not mentioned once

So what?

[DealorNoDeal]

Seems a wee bit ambitious asking for 50%, especially when Felicitas have already picked the low hanging fruit.