Using a Lawyer to remove the loan (once settled)

[here4beer]

With regards to loans that they have issued to you, I would argue it is.

Anyway, best of luck with whatever route you choose and achieve.

Our schemes must be different. In my case the promoter dissolved 5 years ago, but remain very much active today. They have never received or sent any money or loans in any form.
The Loan from the Trust has no paper trail link to them at all. All a bit woolly for me.

In any case, you're right in what you're saying about the promoters lack of interest in writing off loans, hence this thread. If they willingly took a £250 admin fee, there wouldn't be an issue. If some trusts are releasing loans for sub £1000, then it must be possible.

[WalterWhite]

What 'they 'believe' isn't relevant. H

With regards to loans that they have issued to you, I would argue it is.

Anyway, best of luck with whatever route you choose and achieve.

[here4beer]

Maybe this is one for the experts, however my view is it's only in your best interests to declare the loan as income if you are definitely going to get a tax bill from HMRC. Your scheme provider clearly believe (correctly or incorrectly - different debate entirely) that you aren't going to get a tax bill, so with that in mind, it isn't in your best interests to declare the loan as income.

That is the take I was given by my provider and that part seems to make sense to me.
[/COLOR]

I think we'll struggle to align views on this.

I am responsible for my self assessment, not the scheme provider, Trust or accountant. What 'they 'believe' isn't relevant. HMRC state "The charge will apply to all loans made since 6 April 1999 if they are still outstanding on 5 April 2019". So you will get a tax bill on the loans, if they catch you.

Assuming HMRC investigate all 65,000,000 of us in the UK, it is in my best interest to not lie on my self assessment, and avoid the loan charge.


I can see why promoters don't like it, which is why I enquire in this thread about Loan Settlers using lawyers instead of "Loan Helpline" companies.

[WalterWhite]

As it's a loan from a Trust, they "must act in my best interest". And it is in my best interest to declare the loans as income, and then have them wrote off for admin fee. It may be in someone else's interest to not declare the loan, and to keep it active.

As I never have to pay the loan back (apparently), the Trust will never receive a single penny from me. However even an admin fee of £250, puts an extra £250 in their pockets they weren't expecting.

EDIT - ps, they're still running, yes. But the Trust was closed/removed last month. Hmm.

Maybe this is one for the experts, however my view is it's only in your best interests to declare the loan as income if you are definitely going to get a tax bill from HMRC. Your scheme provider clearly believe (correctly or incorrectly - different debate entirely) that you aren't going to get a tax bill, so with that in mind, it isn't in your best interests to declare the loan as income.

That is the take I was given by my provider and that part seems to make sense to me.

[here4beer]

Because unless every client they had has settled, they are still defending others who received the same, identical loans.

How can they possibly argue they are genuine for one client if they are writing them off for another?

As it's a loan from a Trust, they "must act in my best interest". And it is in my best interest to declare the loans as income, and then have them wrote off for admin fee. It may be in someone else's interest to not declare the loan, and to keep it active.

As I never have to pay the loan back (apparently), the Trust will never receive a single penny from me. However even an admin fee of £250, puts an extra £250 in their pockets they weren't expecting.

EDIT - ps, they're still running, yes. But the Trust was closed/removed last month. Hmm.

[WalterWhite]

But surely, once settled, the whole loan premise is blown out of the water, so why would they not agree to release / write-off the loans for a nominal admin fee (£250)? Not sure if any of these companies still trade, so it would be no good HMRC going after them.

Because unless every client they had has settled, they are still defending others who received the same, identical loans.

How can they possibly argue they are genuine for one client if they are writing them off for another?

[Dmac]

Looking at your previous posts, it seems that your scheme provider is still around and helping (or at least they were last year?)

If that is still the case, there is no way they will release or void the loans as this would surely make it tough (or impossible) for them to argue that the loans were genuine to HMRC.

My scheme provider are still around and won't do this for that exact reason - I do agree with their stance on that, however whether they can successfully defend the scheme is another matter entirely.

But surely, once settled, the whole loan premise is blown out of the water, so why would they not agree to release / write-off the loans for a nominal admin fee (£250)? Not sure if any of these companies still trade, so it would be no good HMRC going after them.

[WalterWhite]

anyone else

Looking at your previous posts, it seems that your scheme provider is still around and helping (or at least they were last year?)

If that is still the case, there is no way they will release or void the loans as this would surely make it tough (or impossible) for them to argue that the loans were genuine to HMRC.

My scheme provider are still around and won't do this for that exact reason - I do agree with their stance on that, however whether they can successfully defend the scheme is another matter entirely.

[here4beer]

anyone else

[webberg]

Although loans come in different forms, their jurisdiction for governance tends to be IOM, UK, Channel Island, somewhere warmer.

Probably in that order in terms of volume.

20,000? Perhaps. I would say closer to 3 times that.

Acting together? In theory that is sensible and creates the lowest per capita cost. In practice, doesn't happen for a variety of reasons.

Let me also be very clear from the outset.

We are looking at the ability of the lender to recall loans and what legal defences are available. This is part of a wider legal offering that is being developed that will also look at related issues.

This will be commercially available in perhaps a month.

It is not a free service. It is a service that can be accessed for a fee. That fee, directly and indirectly, will result in income being generated for the small group of companies that I founded and continue to have a commercial interest in.

I have in the past and will continue in the future to seek the permission of the admin team on these threads before posting anything that might be regarded as advertising.

As I have not done that so far, I will be posting nothing more on this issue for the time being.

[here4beer]

Also not a lawyer but have spoken with lots of them about this.

The rights of the borrower are quite limited but combined with their rights as beneficiaries (if the lender is a trust) are more persuasive.

I think that's what we're all clinging too

However an action against a lender is likely to be a long and expensive process and comes with no guarantee of success.

I'm hoping of the 20,000+ people affected, they all come to this thread, and all want to join in...

We are exploring options here but are not yet in a position to be able to offer anything other than a general concept.

I will however say that where a loan is subject to Manx law and a Manx Court finds that the borrower must repay the loan, then a UK Court has a mechanism by which it will adopt the Manx Court decision. There will usually be no separate hearing in the UK.

my loan (although from offshore) agreement says "the courts of england have full jurisdiction over this agreement."

Watch this space.

Hopefully that's common with a few other people?

[webberg]

Also not a lawyer but have spoken with lots of them about this.

The rights of the borrower are quite limited but combined with their rights as beneficiaries (if the lender is a trust) are more persuasive.

However an action against a lender is likely to be a long and expensive process and comes with no guarantee of success.

We are exploring options here but are not yet in a position to be able to offer anything other than a general concept.

I will however say that where a loan is subject to Manx law and a Manx Court finds that the borrower must repay the loan, then a UK Court has a mechanism by which it will adopt the Manx Court decision. There will usually be no separate hearing in the UK.

Watch this space.

[here4beer]

Has anyone gone down this route, rather than pay the "admin fee" that is being charged by THL? My TA settlement package included release of loans (where possible), but I'm sure we would rather give a solicitor the same money, than line the pockets of these Trusts even more?

I understand a loan is a loan. However the unsecured personal loans received via an off shore trust (fiduciary relationship blah blah), surely isn't as enforceable as a secured loan from a UK Bank/lender? I'm still settling, so quite a while away from getting one myself.

My legal knowledge is equal to my tax knowledge, which is poor. So go easy.


P.S., I'm not a solicitor touting in disguise