Loan Scheme - Trusts recalling loans?

[loanchargehurt]

Two people here suggested that perhaps there was nothing sinister in the request from the Trustees, and yet Woody 1 attacked those individuals on the basis apparently they were better informed (and then had to apologise).

Then he went on to blame the Promoters for HMRC having changed their stance after they announced the loan charge, by adding a claim for IHT to settlements.

It is arguable as to whether IHT should be due, but does anyone have the funds and the will to challenge HMRC.

Ironically those who have not been charged IHT include the PBW schemes, (HMRC tried to pursue PBW but failed due to an HMRC error), because it turned out the trusts had never been properly constituted. So once again the bulk of the liability falls on the most compliant.

[malvolio]

Two people here suggested that perhaps there was nothing sinister in the request from the Trustees, and yet Woody 1 attacked those individuals on the basis apparently they were better informed (and then had to apologise).

Then he went on to blame the Promoters for HMRC having changed their stance after they announced the loan charge, by adding a claim for IHT to settlements.

It is arguable as to whether IHT should be due, but does anyone have the funds and the will to challenge HMRC.

Ironically those who have not been charged IHT include the PBW schemes, (HMRC tried to pursue PBW but failed due to an HMRC error), because it turned out the trusts had never been properly constituted. So once again the bulk of the liability falls on the most compliant.

If you go back to the dark days when this was all first being reported, some of the many (mostly ignored) risks assessments raised the spectre of IHT being charged on the earnings on the user's death; in other words the tax liability lasted until that point if it wasn't actually paid off earlier So while later decisions and other changes may have taken IHT off the radar, levying it at some point is not a new concept.

[sadkingbilly]

and is there some purpose to your constant polemic?
what do you hope to achieve from all your time posting?

[loanchargehurt]

Another "very well informed" poster signing up this month, both of them seeming to explain away the actions of scheme promoters/trustees.

stillpestered, loanchargehurt

Any connection I wonder? One for our resident Detective Inspector WTFH perhaps?

If you go back to the dark days when this was all first being reported, some of the many (mostly ignored) risks assessments raised the spectre of IHT being charged on the earnings on the user's death; in other words the tax liability lasted until that point if it wasn't actually paid off earlier So while later decisions and other changes may have taken IHT off the radar, levying it at some point is not a new concept.

I have no idea why Woody1 is so polemic other than not being well informed.

I would have said the complete opposite.

If you have a loan (from a trust) in your estate that would logically be a deduction from your estate and so reduce IHT due, not create a liability.

IHT is not charged on earnings.

IHT being chargeable is not something that would have been ignored by a knowledgeable Promoter, so one must conclude that they would disagree with HMRC.

[cojak]

call them out and you get threatened with a ban.
or is it just me?

Don’t play the innocent sadkingbilly, you doctored the comment in your reply. This isn’t General, if you want to play silly buggers do it there.

[cojak]

Hi, I was in the schemes from 2004 - 2006 and also settled with HMRC (back in 2013).

IIRC I went for Option 2 - had to prove I settled with HMRC. There was IHT also that I settled. On doing this, you can request a letter from Equiom/Marra confirming that the loans have been 'forgiven'. They charge a small fee (mine was £500) but this was 10 years ago.

I must admit that seeing this thread brought back all the dread of dealing with this stuff, and I have just checked that I still have copies of the write-off letters to cover myself in case they write to me. I've not had anything from them since the confirmation that they've forgiven the loans.

Quite possibly they really do need to close out the trust as suggested upthread. As far as these schemes are concerned, Eqiom/Marra are (relatively) professional, or they were 10 years ago.

I'm not very active on this board having retired from contracting but you can presumably see I've been on CUK for >10 years?

Edit: My write-off letter from Marra is dated April 2016.

I remember you Lady Penelope. I hope life has been kind to you since those days.

[Diagnose b4 u prescribe]

Two people here suggested that perhaps there was nothing sinister in the request from the Trustees, and yet Woody 1 attacked those individuals on the basis apparently they were better informed (and then had to apologise).

Then he went on to blame the Promoters for HMRC having changed their stance after they announced the loan charge, by adding a claim for IHT to settlements.

It is arguable as to whether IHT should be due, but does anyone have the funds and the will to challenge HMRC.

Ironically those who have not been charged IHT include the PBW schemes, (HMRC tried to pursue PBW but failed due to an HMRC error), because it turned out the trusts had never been properly constituted. So once again the bulk of the liability falls on the most compliant.

1. Yes Woody1 questioned 2 posters but I believe he only apologised to the other poster, not you.

2. You joined just over 2 weeks ago, and have been a prolific poster within 2 threads and have also started another. From re-reading your posts, you have variously attacked HMRC, McCann, LCAG, WTT plus multiple contributors who have challenged you. I have great sympathy for those who have paid considerable sums to both HMRC and 3rd Parties. I also feel sorry for those excluded from this latest settlement opportunity. So there may be just cause for criticising SOME of your targets. But.......

The tone of your post at 14.02 yesterday took a different tone? You defended why Trustees would initiate these latest letters as follows:
The Trustees will need to know that you have settled the liabilities with HMRC before they release the loans, otherwise they may have effectively distributed trust assets depriving HMRC (if a debt is outstanding) and could find themselves liable.
Yes by all means tread cautiously, but I don't see it as unexpected that the Trustees would want certainty that you have settled with HMRC before they release the loan debt.
Their only other option might be to call in the debt in order to meet the liability (the debt is all they hold, no cash), only then can they write-off the loans and close the trust. It may not be sinister at all.
You therefore create the impression the only people you are not angry with are the Trustees of one of the older schemes.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no 'skin' in either this thread or the one you started yourself i.e. "Excluded from the McCann settlement" so I no longer intend to react to your numerous prompts and questions.

Finally, I would advise all those who come to this forum to look for information, advice and support, to apply caution. Might even be worth adopting the credo most reputable news reporters apply before they publish: Verify your source and fact check the information.

To paraphrase a quote from Queen Gertrude in Shakespeare's Macbeth, methinks he doth protest too much.

[loanchargehurt]

“The tone of your post at 14.02 yesterday took a different tone? You defended why Trustees would initiate these latest letters”

Not correct.

I factually pointed out why Trustees might want to know the tax liability had been resolved before writing-off trust debts, less they find themselves personally liable.

I believe was an eminently sensible thing to say to help the OP. Nothing whatsoever to do with defending anyone who is guilty of anything. You’ve just imagined something sinister in the actions of what might be professional trustees. Then imagined me as defending some guilty party even though you completely made up the guilt!

A number of contributors on here are seeing ghosts that don’t exist & in doing so they mislead their fellow victims and attack those trying to help. The paranoia strangles anyone who wishes to help (apparently unless they’re selling to you!).