Reply to: The Trust Helpline Problem

[hudson]

Some useful info, I was out with friends last night, one of whom now works at baker tilly.

He himself was involved in a scheme when we were working together in the city about 10 or so years ago.

He has been able to check his own position in terms of trusts and loans and has confirmed that he has no loans under his name, even though the scheme operator sent him loan statements and text to state a loan has been approved each time. These have either been written off since or at worse were never put through as loans. He was also chased by trust helpline recently even though he had already confirmed he had no recorded outstanding trust loans.

His advice is to get in touch with the trustees and find out about your loan position. Do not accept the position stated by trust helpline or dor or any other outfit, make it a priority to find out who the trustees are and get in touch with them and find out your loan position before paying another penny.

PS. just remembered, he also mentioned to be weary of being asked to sign undated documents. He said he has seen instances where loans were written off many years ago by the scheme, but the beneficiary is asked to purchase deed of release many years later and the signed document is then back-dated, and the beneficiary pays for loans to be written off which were already written off. So don't sign undated documents if you are asked to.

[webberg]

Darwin who l was involved with don’t exist. Hence confused who trustees are and who gets the cash and why they get it

Darwin may not exist, but the loan does because the loan was made by a trust (allegedly) and a trust cannot cease to exist without some form of asset distribution.

A trustee can resign from acting, but only if another trustee is appointed. If no such trustee is found, many jurisdictions have a fall back in the form of an "official" trustee (or somebody performing that function).

If the trust is still in existence (it is); if the trustee of record has not resigned (no evidence they have); then if the money paid is advised to you as being a partial repayment of the loan, it belongs to the trust and the trustee has certain legal obligations as to how it receives, accounts for and perhaps spends, that money.

A trustee is usually entitled to charge "reasonable fees".

Is 5% of loan balances spent in fees "reasonable"? I don't know.

At the end of the day, it's YOUR trust and as a beneficiary you have rights including asking the trustee to account for income.

If you have left the trust by paying the 5% and being "released" then of course your rights have been given up and the trustee has no obligation toward you.

If you have not left the trust, then you can probably ask the trustee as above.

[piebaps]

As I haven't seen your documents I can't say for sure, however this looks like a good bet https://opencorporates.com/companies/im/005057V

As you can see, there's a Baker Tilly link. I'd start by contacting them and asking who the Trustee is.

[ZDR1875]

That is very unclear ZDR. My money is on the same person or persons who sold you the scheme in the first place!!

My suspicion is that Baker Tilly were providing TCSP services to a client and that its the same client who is operating THL. I have no evidence of this though sadly.

I know for sure though that I wouldn't be giving them a penny.

Darwin who l was involved with don’t exist. Hence confused who trustees are and who gets the cash and why they get it

[cojak]

More news here: THL - Goodbye and Good Riddance

[hudson]

In my case (Winchester EBT), the scheme provider were dissolved (by Baker Tilly) and now Baker Tilly are the sole trustees (via a specialist trust company they own).

It was Baker Tilly who employed THL. It was Baker Tilly who employed THL to chase beneficiaries, and passed them our data without telling us. It is Baker Tilly who are seemingly making getting accurate information about the trust as hard and confusing as they can.

It is Baker Tilly who claim they cannot answer any questions because they don't have the "expertise or resources", instead passing you on to a company set up by an 18 year old just over a year ago...

It is Baker Tilly who appear to have set up another company (DOR Resolutions Ltd) just to take payment and confuse that part of the process. DOR's postal address is a PO box in the Isle of Man, but from talking to them it is pretty clear they are not British, and probably not in Europe.

I don't know how well Baker Tilly have covered themselves legally, but based on what i've found and my communication with Baker Tilly and all the companies they are putting between us and them, they do seem to be running this show.

It may be different for other Employee Benefit Trusts.

James

Well, I think THL and DOR Resolutions Ltd are just a pair of shady two-bit companies who are trying to leverage off the Baker Tilly brand in order to create a facade of integrity to their company image and scare people with their fictional corporate prowess in order to force them to pay up for God knows what. That is why they have to go to the trouble of paying for a virtual office as their company address, with no telephone contact to any actual person, it's all a facade.

[webberg]

A judge can, I think, be relied upon to follow the law and to apply it in a manner that is consistent with that law and "natural justice". IN many cases where one party in a legal dispute was clearly at a disadvantage through lack of knowledge or competence, we see Judges bending over backwards and performing legal logic somersaults to be not only fair, but to be seen to be fair.

However that does not take away the effect of any legal documents you have signed which have a real world effect. A Judge is obliged to give them fair weight.

In many cases of schemes prior to 2011, loan agreements were signed which were subject to Manx law. A dispute over the ability of the lender to perfect a repayment claim, will go to a Manx Court. Given that many Manx Judges are trained in the UK and that Manx law is similar in many respects to UK law, I think we can assume the independence of the judiciary and the same fair approach.

So, in evaluating the situation, be realistic.

Look at the legal agreements and give them their credence. Do not assume that because you see the papering of the transactions as simply a legal means to receive a tax free sum, that a Judge will say that there is no loan.

[here4beer]

You assume that a judge will rule based on natural justice rather than law.
I’m not so sure that’s correct.

That's based on coming forward open book on a non secured 'tax avoidance' offshore trustee loan.

If I had 100% confidence a judge would follow the exact letter of the law, with my scheme in particular - I would never have settled with HMRC.

[Lance]

As if a judge is going to rule in their favour

You assume that a judge will rule based on natural justice rather than law.
I’m not so sure that’s correct.

[piebaps]

That is very unclear ZDR. My money is on the same person or persons who sold you the scheme in the first place!!

My suspicion is that Baker Tilly were providing TCSP services to a client and that its the same client who is operating THL. I have no evidence of this though sadly.

I know for sure though that I wouldn't be giving them a penny.

[ZDR1875]

If you were to pay who actual gets the money? THL? Trustees?

[here4beer]

I thought the Loans for Winchester didn't need to be repaid for 30 years, so why do we have to pay now all of a sudden

What would would happen if I just ignored their emails.
If I did would that put a stop to their demands or could they come back again in the future want more

If they had you over a barrel, and you 100% have to pay back 100% of the loan at some point - they wouldn't be accepting a measly 5% to write it off.

I might try that on my mortgage. I currently owe my bank £300k, I'll see if they'll accept £19.80

It's an unsecured personal loan via an off shore Beneficiary Trust, you've since declared fully to HMRC after being sold a tax avoidance product. You've now paid more tax than you would've done, and lost additional money to these crooks. Now they're harassing you for more. As if a judge is going to rule in their favour

[HarveyBains]

Options

I thought the Loans for Winchester didn't need to be repaid for 30 years, so why do we have to pay now all of a sudden

What would would happen if I just ignored their emails.
If I did would that put a stop to their demands or could they come back again in the future want more

[HarveyBains]

Options

Can I not just ignore them - what could they do to me if I didn't comply ?
What happens if I do pay - would that put a stop to them or could they still come for more?,
Plus I thought the loans didn't need to be repaid for 30 years

[Bemi]

what is the guarantee they will stop at 5%?
they are offshore firms and if they claim the amount , it means the firms are still active and then they are liable to pay the Employer NI !

Nope. By dissolving they removed their liability (and HMRC let them keep operating for years after they started going after the employees).

The trustees who hold your loan are not legally linked to the original firms, so they can own all of your "loan" while holding no responsibility for the fact it was fraudulently sold.

I am speaking to WTT Big Group and a contracts lawyer to confirm this, but the bottom line appears to be they have us coming and going and it's all legal.