Loan Demand what can I do to pre-empt

[ThomasRostron]

I have settled with HMRC and paying over 10+ years. Thats fine I can just about do this.

The thing that is keeping me up (and far worse then when HMRC calling) is what if the company start to demand their loan.

The company was offshore (out of Europe too).

I have looked through the terms they set:
Loan period was upto 2029.
They can contest the claim globally in any country and in multiple countries concurently if relevant.

They ofcourse mentioned they would never collect the loans, but never in writing.

I have not heard from these guys in over 5 years, and I have tried contacting them with regards issuing some write-off but got no reply.

I know they exist and have changed names to some other company.

The question is there anything I can do pre emptively if they sell the loans on. (Ie spend all savings, sell my businesses) They will make me bankrupt if they demand all.

Is there any way groups that are dealing with this?

Can we get HMRC or MPs to help as HMRC themselves have said that they do not regard the loans as real-loans, but Tax avoidance means?

This I am sure effects many people here.

I will not provide other information about the loan companies as I do not want to kick off over any hornets nests now.

[DavidD]

Hi,

I'm in almost exactly the same boat - paying HMRC back over 10 years etc. I've stated on here many time that, in my opinion, the reclaiming of the loans is just a shakedown which will never survive the courts and I will never ever voluntarily pay a single penny no matter what the circumstances.

Having said that I do consciously structure my finances so that if it ever got to the stage that I was being made bankrupt, which would be inevitable given the size of the loan, that my pursuer would get nothing. A game that the 'loan companies' played to good effect with HMRC.

I know several people who do this and I also know someone who has ensured that they had zero assets with their family home in their wife's name etc. just in case.

Just to be clear, I have and I am paying HMRC for claimed tax, in the above examples I'm talking about protecting myself from (imho criminal) fraudulent claims for a 'loan' that never existed.

Good luck and stay strong.

[eek]

It may be a shakedown but I wouldn't want to be that a court would throw it out.

It's possible that the court may only be able to look at a narrow part of the full story and so ignore how the money arrived into the scheme anD just look at the bit between the final trust / company and your bank account.(Yes it's not right but I suspect that may be the end result).

As for your other point - I hope you moved house as you transferred the home into your wife's name - I've seen people trying to avoid care home bills fail on that basis (as it's seen as an avoidance measure without justification rather than a practical one). For future reference you can pull the move trick even after the symptoms are obvious (just keep some equity aside).

[regron]

Under bankruptcy they can unwind any asset transfer within the last 5 yrs prior to bankruptcy, if it was purely down to hiding them. Something to be wary of if not already.

Bankruptcy offences - Citizens Advice

Hi,

I'm in almost exactly the same boat - paying HMRC back over 10 years etc. I've stated on here many time that, in my opinion, the reclaiming of the loans is just a shakedown which will never survive the courts and I will never ever voluntarily pay a single penny no matter what the circumstances.

Having said that I do consciously structure my finances so that if it ever got to the stage that I was being made bankrupt, which would be inevitable given the size of the loan, that my pursuer would get nothing. A game that the 'loan companies' played to good effect with HMRC.

I know several people who do this and I also know someone who has ensured that they had zero assets with their family home in their wife's name etc. just in case.

Just to be clear, I have and I am paying HMRC for claimed tax, in the above examples I'm talking about protecting myself from (imho criminal) fraudulent claims for a 'loan' that never existed.

Good luck and stay strong.

[DavidD]

Personally, I don't expect a court to have such a narrow view - I believe it would fall over at the point of looking at the documentation as my 'loan' contract is full of holes and does not reflect a 'normal' loan agreement - furthermore, I believe there are problems with the way it has actually been executed - all just IMHO.

It would also be a calamity for HMRC for courts to start to insist that these loans are legitimate - something I believe government and HMRC would 'work' to make sure does not happen.

In regard to the house transfer just to re-iterate in this scenario it is actually someone I know not not me ! (asking for a friend and all that !) I also know it was at the point of moving to a new house - this was several years ago at around the time APNs were first issued and I know that he has now settled.

I think it will be many years, more likely never, that a user of a loan scheme is asked to actually make a payment to a fraudster this gives plenty of time to legitimately and proactively structure your affairs.

[eek]

Personally, I don't expect a court to have such a narrow view - I believe it would fall over at the point of looking at the documentation as my 'loan' contract is full of holes and does not reflect a 'normal' loan agreement - furthermore, I believe there are problems with the way it has actually been executed - all just IMHO.

It would also be a calamity for HMRC for courts to start to insist that these loans are legitimate - something I believe government and HMRC would 'work' to make sure does not happen.

In regard to the house transfer just to re-iterate in this scenario it is actually someone I know not not me ! (asking for a friend and all that !) I also know it was at the point of moving to a new house - this was several years ago at around the time APNs were first issued and I know that he has now settled.

I think it will be many years, more likely never, that a user of a loan scheme is asked to actually make a payment to a fraudster this gives plenty of time to legitimately and proactively structure your affairs.

I've continually talked about Schrodinger money - once you entered into the scheme HMRC's viewpoint of what that money is wasn't the same as the scheme providers and with 2 different courts making decisions it's perfectly possible that in the narrow definitions they are being asked to judge on both could find against you.

And it wouldn't matter 1 bit to HMRC if the courts decided when looking at the narrow bit they have been asked about that the money was a loan - heck you agreed to receive the money as a loan to avoid paying tax - a lot of taxpayers would regard it as justice if those cheating the system ended up paying twice over.

In fact a few cases like that would help HMRC out no end - as it could point at the really dire circumstances of joining a scheme - temporary access to money on which you pay tax and then are forced to repay the money - a few stories like that and the schemes may finally be killed off once and for all.

[DavidD]

If I look at my own situation (which I'm sure is like many others) it would not be in HMRCs interest for me to be pursued for the 'loan' I couldn't pay both - so my settlement with HMRC would be in jeopardy - something I'm sure they don't want..

[regron]

HMRC have nothing to do with your loans getting recalled and are therefore totally separate events. Hmrc will still expect you to fulfill your settlement contract, whatever happens with the loans and possible recall.

Might be worth speaking to a professional and look at getting your loans released as you have settled. Depending on any possible IHT liability, it may be cheaper and would take the possibility of loan recall away.

If I look at my own situation (which I'm sure is like many others) it would not be in HMRCs interest for me to be pursued for the 'loan' I couldn't pay both - so my settlement with HMRC would be in jeopardy - something I'm sure they don't want..

[DavidD]

IMHO - On paper they may seem separate events but they are intrinsically linked - two dogs are fighting over the same dinner - only one can win. The 'dinner' is only so big.

PS - One dog claims dinner is his (tax) other dog claims dinner is his (loan) - they are linked l

[webberg]

IMHO - On paper they may seem separate events but they are intrinsically linked - two dogs are fighting over the same dinner - only one can win. The 'dinner' is only so big.

PS - One dog claims dinner is his (tax) other dog claims dinner is his (loan) - they are linked l

I'm afraid they are not.

Not on paper or otherwise.

Take heed of the above and if you get a demand for the loan go and get some advice.