- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters"
Collapse
-
Good grief, is this still going on? Thought that the legs and head had already fallen off this zombie clawback.
-
They (Felicitas) didn't make take a penny from me.
I did take something from him, however.
Andrew William Thompson.
I don't think this has the legs to continue.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MrO666 View PostIt's worth remembering that precedent has now been set and that for any claim like this to actually succeed (short of just scaring people into paying up), they will now most likely need to prove to a judge that:
1) The alleged "loan" was in fact a genuine loan and legally enforceable, and that all paperwork leaves no doubt to that being the case.
2) That the sale of the trusts assets for a nominal sum was genuinely in the best interests of the trust members (worth reading eek's comment from 06-Jul-23)
The last point in is very interesting, and that's where a similar (not identical) challenge fell down I believe. This is why I think this all seems to have stopped, as it's exceptionally difficult to argue point 2 in any genuine capacity, and no doubt very expensive and risky to try.
Who knows what if anything will happen, however nearly a year on and I don't believe people have had any further contact.
Point 3
They did come back after lengthy breaks previously in various guises trying to collect the same amounts. Many will remember TFL who tried and then two years later it was Felicitas, I'm sure there were more iterations before TFL etc., to be perfectly honest though I do believe they have stopped now after making someone a very tidy sum of money.Last edited by GregRickshaw; 25 June 2024, 12:13.
Leave a comment:
-
It's worth remembering that precedent has now been set and that for any claim like this to actually succeed (short of just scaring people into paying up), they will now most likely need to prove to a judge that:
1) The alleged "loan" was in fact a genuine loan and legally enforceable, and that all paperwork leaves no doubt to that being the case.
2) That the sale of the trusts assets for a nominal sum was genuinely in the best interests of the trust members (worth reading eek's comment from 06-Jul-23)
The last point in is very interesting, and that's where a similar (not identical) challenge fell down I believe. This is why I think this all seems to have stopped, as it's exceptionally difficult to argue point 2 in any genuine capacity, and no doubt very expensive and risky to try.
Who knows what if anything will happen, however nearly a year on and I don't believe people have had any further contact.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Whowouldhavethought View PostOut of interest, did anything ever come of the threats? I ended up settling for a small amount, but I still check on here to see what the state of play is.
For those who didn't pay anything you can bet any money on just around the corner comes a new slew of claims and counter claims etc.,
Leave a comment:
-
Out of interest, did anything ever come of the threats? I ended up settling for a small amount, but I still check on here to see what the state of play is.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MrO666 View PostInteresting.......
....they now have a second hurdle of trying to prove that the trustee selling a trust asset, knowing that the alleged loans would then be called in , was in the best interests of the members..............
That depends on whether the current members of the trust are the same of those who originally benefited from the loans...
Note - this was more me highlighting a potential issue than pointing at an actual issue...
Leave a comment:
-
Interesting.......
So whilst this will be unlikely to apply in all cases, what it will probably do is make any potential "purchaser" of an alleged loan book think twice, which I suspect in a majority of cases will be all that's needed.
The argument about the original trustees selling off the "assets" being in the best interests of the trust members was brought up years ago when the whole Felicitas debacle started, and at last it seems like this train of thought is starting to prevail, and in this specific case been tested in court.
I very much think it's the end game now for this sort of thing, as anyone trying to claim repayment of alleged loans now knows that they're going to need to prove the validity in court, which is going to be very risky not to mention expensive. Even if the paperwork trail was perfect (which it isn't for any scheme), they now have a second hurdle of trying to prove that the trustee selling a trust asset, knowing that the alleged loans would then be called in , was in the best interests of the members..............
Leave a comment:
-
Someone posted on the HMRC Enquiry section
FS Capital judgment on validity of assignment of contractor loans
No idea how to link it....sorry
Which although doesn't mean it's totally over, it does look very likely the passing of debts where trusts are involved is either not allowed or very difficult.
May mean a flurry of activity or the final demise of such actions.
I see it as good news for those still caught up
Leave a comment:
-
Over 8 months now since W28 contacted some people, and to the best of my knowledge, nothing further (well not for the people I know who were initially contacted).........
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by VillageIdiotDan View Post
Hello, that's a really useful distinction - thank you.
Can I ask a naive question: if there's a chance of the Trust recalling the loan (3) from the contractor, does the opportunity not flow up? i.e. the money the Client (in this instance I see that as my limited company?) to the Mgt Company (1) can't of just disappeared right, so that liability could be claimed back by the Client?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GoneSurfing View Post
The money flowed like this:
Client --(1)--> Management Company --(2)--> Trust --(3)--> You.
Rangers found that (2) was taxable, not (3).
Can I ask a naive question: if there's a chance of the Trust recalling the loan (3) from the contractor, does the opportunity not flow up? i.e. the money the Client (in this instance I see that as my limited company?) to the Mgt Company (1) can't of just disappeared right, so that liability could be claimed back by the Client?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GoneSurfing View Post
Exactly.
'Repayable on demand' was a common clause in the loan agreements but the defence isn't that 'these aren't loans because HMRC taxed them'.
The rest of us are quite satisfied with dividing the two.
HRMC declared them as income, that's really the end of that story
Bodgit & Scarper want the money they loaned out back, that's the beginning of that story.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View Post
recalls are what happens to loans…
'Repayable on demand' was a common clause in the loan agreements but the defence isn't that 'these aren't loans because HMRC taxed them'.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GoneSurfing View Post
I didn't realise it was a ticketed event that you were gatekeeping, but if you must know I'm here because of morbid curiosity and that fact that I might very well be subject to a recall at some stage.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Yesterday 09:20
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Dec 3 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Dec 2 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
Leave a comment: