Reply to: Confirmation of settlement

[webberg]

[
All of that however is irrelevant as the legal rights around the loan still then belong to (in this instance) Felicitas.

Can I ask Webberg, should Felicitas not be providing evidence to us directly that they do legally hold the rights? I have seen nothing of the sort. It could be anyone asking me for this money.

I have all my paper work and understand my situation. I just want them to prove they have the legal right, and I will settle things once and for all.[/QUOTE]

Yes they should be asked to prove that a valid assignment of the legal rights has been executed.

No proof means that Felicitas probably has no right to stand in the shoes of the original lender.

You do need to follow that provenance trail all the way back to the original loan.

[SouthKD]

You say so but still no proof.

[
All of that however is irrelevant as the legal rights around the loan still then belong to (in this instance) Felicitas.
[/QUOTE]

Can I ask Webberg, should Felicitas not be providing evidence to us directly that they do legally hold the rights? I have seen nothing of the sort. It could be anyone asking me for this money.

I have all my paper work and understand my situation. I just want them to prove they have the legal right, and I will settle things once and for all.

[contractor1981]

My settlement has been rejected by HMRC on grounds that I didn't attach the appendix to the signed scanned copy I sent. Really in deep trouble now.

(Created a new thread on this but not sure what happened to it ? Admin can you please help)

[webberg]

The post above from Mr "Superfly" needs some commentary.

First, in establishing whether the loan is "real" you need to look at the creation of the obligation first. Was the lender able to make the loan? Was it made in cash? Did the borrower understand their obligations?

In the case of the Sanzar loans I suspect that the alleged lender was the then "employer" - which may or may not have purported to have been a trustee of the Sanzar trust.

Second, the loan - as a financial asset - may have been subjected to certain events since its creation. In the case of Sanzar that's probably two significant events. One was the claimed "repayment" at the end of each tax year and the other was the later claimed transfer to Felicitas.

The original loans were in a trust and formed the basis of a "life interest" for individuals. These life interests were subsequently sold to the Sanzar partnership (which was also the settlor) and therefore the individual liability disappeared. I suggest that this sale is why the liability of the individual no longer exists and why Felicitas was unable to pursue the loan.

The transfer/sale/assignment of the loan to Felicitas is - in light of the above - not that significant. Even if the loan carried any obligations on the borrower however, the fact - and it is a fact - that the trustee (a successor to the original trustee and therefore date of formation irrelevant) assigned the loans to Felicitas, does NOT rob the loan of its power to be recalled.

You may be able to claim that the trustee was acting outside its remit, unlawfully, immorally, etc. I'm not a trust lawyer and have no opinion. All of that however is irrelevant as the legal rights around the loan still then belong to (in this instance) Felicitas.

Even if the trustee was outside its remit, what is the remedy? It will certainly not be a reversal of the transaction. It is likely to be some sort of action against the trustee to restore the assets of the trust (assets that the trustee considers are worth nothing) and perhaps some legal costs.

There is an onus upon you to report repayments and write offs of loans. The online disclosure form included such information and if you completed that correctly, you will have noted this.

All of the above - and a much deeper legal, tax, trust and technical analysis - we completed in mid 2018 from existing materials. I've seen much here and elsewhere about the actions and morals of the parties involved, but little or nothing that actually matches the legal realities and ultimately in any discussion in court or with HMRC you MUST HAVE THE FACTS and not just the moral high ground.

The point at which you need these facts is here NOW.

If you have papers from back in the day - read them - understand them - use them to defend yourself from a woefully ill informed HMRC.

If you do not, then read this forum but please - separate unsubstantiated commentary from real facts.

[Superfly]

Superfly, can I ask if your loans were through Sanzar? If so, can I ask how you got confirmation that your loans were written off?

Yes they were through Sanzar. I have a letter of confirmation from Felicitas directed to myself that the loans have been written off.

As Felicitas never proved to me that they have any connection with the 'loans', I do not know how much credence to lend to their claims of writing off the 'loan'.

Additionally, my P11D that Sanzar gave me stated that the loans had been discharged at the end of the tax year all those years ago.

Finally, the purported original trust that my Sanzar 'loans' was supposedly distributed from (Professional Independent Trustees) was not incorporated until 15 June 2011, three months after everyone stopped using Sanzar.

So there are holes all over this Sanzar business. So I don't put too much mind to Felicitas's claims to write-off the loans. As far as I am concerned, best case they were never put through a trust as loans, worst case they were put through but they were reconciled as discharged at the end of the tax year.

As Felicitas has not satisfactorily proven to me that they have any connection with the 'loans', there is no onus on me to report the write-off to HMRC and consequently there is no IHT fallout from the claimed write-off. This is an important technicality that a few advisers are advising their clients, including my own.

[Simon100]

I am fortunate that I have emails from the promoter stating the loans would not be repayable as well as some other admissions which would have buttressed any arguments I would have put forward in court. This is all hypothetical now as my 'loans' have been 'written-off'. I will keep hold of the evidence though as it should prove useful for others in order to put some context around agreements that they may have signed.

Superfly, can I ask if your loans were through Sanzar? If so, can I ask how you got confirmation that your loans were written off?

[webberg]

.

I will paint another one.

I understand all of that and deal with it on a day to day basis. The point of my post was to compare what was being portrayed as an unreasonable HMRC contract with another contract that almost everybody on here also entered - voluntarily. You are absolutely correct that the difference is context.

Holding up the settlement contract as a stand alone document allows me to compare the document suite seen in loan schemes.

When you include the context of both situations, it all seems much more reasonable.

I'm not here to judge what you did and I don't do that in my day to day job. I do however think that if you see both "entry" and "exit" mechanisms in a valid comparison, it may help some people reconcile what HMRC wishes them to "admit".

[lowpaidworker]

Leaving aside the scheme aside I am talking about the agreement to settle with HMRC

The agreement should just say I agree to pay the disputed tax for years x x or z. Why does the first statement say basically this is all my fault. Pretty sure HMRC came in for a lot of criticism in SAMs report.

Also in answer to WebberG if I dont sign it I am in more trouble as by law I should have then delclared these on my SATR. Makes sense now why HMRC left these settlemens so late in the day.

I was thinking of writing an agreement to just pay the tax disputed quoting the agreed figures without prejudice and not admit any liability.

[Paralytic]

I will paint another one. What if the promoter at the time of signing told you that the loans will not be repayable? What if the promoter told you that the loans were purely to allow the tax-planning of the scheme to work? What if the promoter assured you that the sham 'loan' was all perfectly legal? What if the promoter told you that the scheme was approved by HMRC? What if the promoter told you that the scheme had the backing of QC opinion? What if the promoter told you that you had to apply for a 'loan' but it would never be refused as long as the amount did not exceed what you had paid in?

What if a contact from the Nigerian consulate contacted you to say the Prince needed help in extracting $100,000 from the country and would pay you a commission for helping him?

There's no doubt some people were just financially unsophisticated and their greed made the fall for the patter, but I can't believe a significant number of people were not in the "I know this is too good to be true, but let's take the risk" bucket.

[Superfly]

Nobody forces you to sign it.

The documents from the promoters and their supporters are equally scary although usually for the things they don't say.

For example, in almost all instances, once money went to the promoter/trust, they were NOT obliged to pay you a single penny.

If they had decided not to, you had no legal rights to sue them for "your" money, because you had signed all that away without legal recourse.

Again though, nobody forced you to sign.

With regards to the promoter, you paint one perspective. It does make you beg the question as to why anyone would sign such an agreement.

I will paint another one. What if the promoter at the time of signing told you that the loans will not be repayable? What if the promoter told you that the loans were purely to allow the tax-planning of the scheme to work? What if the promoter assured you that the sham 'loan' was all perfectly legal? What if the promoter told you that the scheme was approved by HMRC? What if the promoter told you that the scheme had the backing of QC opinion? What if the promoter told you that you had to apply for a 'loan' but it would never be refused as long as the amount did not exceed what you had paid in?

If you just look at the paperwork in isolation then you get the picture that you are painting, which raises the question as to why anybody would sign such an agreement. But you have to also consider the context around it as well as the (false) assurances provided by the scheme promoter. Then you can understand why people were willing to sign such a one-sided agreement.

Of course on hindsight you can see a generous sprinkling of red-flags. Just the word 'offshore' would make us run a mile. But at the time, for someone who was not tax and finance savvy and maybe a little naïve (remember it is difficult enough for a tax professional to understand and deal with all of this never mind the lay-person), you would take all this promoter spiel at face-value, and choose your umbrella like you would choose your car insurance, go for the cheapest (which are usually the 85 and 90%ers.

I am fortunate that I have emails from the promoter stating the loans would not be repayable as well as some other admissions which would have buttressed any arguments I would have put forward in court. This is all hypothetical now as my 'loans' have been 'written-off'. I will keep hold of the evidence though as it should prove useful for others in order to put some context around agreements that they may have signed.

[webberg]

Anyone else got their settlment letter and read in detail the statement you sign ?

Its like something you expect from China / Iran / Russia when they extract confessions.

Nobody forces you to sign it.

The documents from the promoters and their supporters are equally scary although usually for the things they don't say.

For example, in almost all instances, once money went to the promoter/trust, they were NOT obliged to pay you a single penny.

If they had decided not to, you had no legal rights to sue them for "your" money, because you had signed all that away without legal recourse.

Again though, nobody forced you to sign.

[lowpaidworker]

Anyone else got their settlment letter and read in detail the statement you sign ?

What do people think of ....

"wholly or in part, because of my failure to meet all of my statutory obligations"

another bit about never reclaiming a refund and numerous other clauses. Must be the most one side agreement I have ever read.

Anyone else managed to get this reworded slightly ?

Its like something you expect from China / Iran / Russia when they extract confessions.

[LoanChump]

Confirmation

Thanks mate will do..

FYI I paid on 24th August. After a week I called and said i wanted to check on progress. i was told that a letter confirming the matter sorted would be automatically generated on my 'due date'. Crazy as that was, I said 'ok'
My due date was '18th Sept' i have received nothing. I do usually get a letter from then about a week after they are dated. So I have waited. I have since decided that the likelihood was the person i spoke with actually meant 30th Sept...although I did get him to confirm 18th.
In the meantime, i have a stack of letters chasing, all dated a week apart that I have been posting each week since i paid.
Next week , allowing for their poor admin, i will start calling again.

[EBTContractor]

It's not an instant process.

I suggest you give them ten working days or so and check again.

Thanks mate will do..

[Paralytic]

Or ten working months............

Which, for HRMC, is 20 calendar months.