Reply to: Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters

[GregRickshaw]

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'.

No one is using that as a defence.
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.

[GoneSurfing]

recalls are what happens to loans…

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'.

[cojak]

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.

I’m a mod, I can challenge anyone. And recalls are what happens to loans…

[GoneSurfing]

So you don’t have a demand for repayment of your loan? Why are you in this thread then?

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.

[GoneSurfing]

You are making no sense at all. What tax would be due then if HMRC were not taxing the loans? Very little. HMRC took the loans as payment and taxed us on the loans as they were deemed earnings not a loan.

The money flowed like this:

Client --(1)--> Management Company --(2)--> Trust --(3)--> You.

Rangers found that (2) was taxable, not (3).

[MrO666]

Based on this forum, it would appear that 7 months after W28 sent "pay up or we'll send in the heavies" letters to some people, nothing has happened at all (and I doubt anyone paid up either).

All very odd.

[cojak]

The tax was still due. Just not on the loan.

So you don’t have a demand for repayment of your loan? Why are you in this thread then?

[GregRickshaw]

The tax was still due. Just not on the loan.

You are making no sense at all. What tax would be due then if HMRC were not taxing the loans? Very little. HMRC took the loans as payment and taxed us on the loans as they were deemed earnings not a loan.

The other thing to remember here is this post is about dealing with the companies who came after the loans, not to re-open the debate about whether the loans were loans or not.

Anyway I think I'd rather listen to the advice of known and trusted tax solicitors/specialists etc., than some random on here.

[GoneSurfing]

Ok well you can explain this to HMRC for me and maybe I'll get my £££k back

The tax was still due. Just not on the loan.

[GregRickshaw]

No they haven't.

The Supreme Court found (in the Rangers case) that the payments from the employer into the employee benefit trust were taxable.

The loans that were made by the trust to the employee after that point in the chain were/are still loans.

Ok well you can explain this to HMRC for me and maybe I'll get my £££k back

[GregRickshaw]

Then I expect someone to come and demand repayment of that loan…

Exactly Cojak !

[cojak]

No they haven't.

The Supreme Court found (in the Rangers case) that the payments from the employer into the employee benefit trust were taxable.

The loans that were made by the trust to the employee after that point in the chain were/are still loans.

Then I expect someone to come and demand repayment of that loan…

[GoneSurfing]

HMRC have deemed them as taxable income and not loans though.

No they haven't.

The Supreme Court found (in the Rangers case) that the payments from the employer into the employee benefit trust were taxable.

The loans that were made by the trust to the employee after that point in the chain were/are still loans.

[MrsPatricia]

Can anyone recommend a solicitor for my appeal against HMRC? I emailed them appealing the last letter they sent me saying I owed them £58k including all my information for my original settlement with them and they sent me a letter acknowledging the appeal but saying I still have to pay them the £58k in the mean time.

Edited to add: just spoken to HMRC and apparently because I didn’t use the exact phrase “postpone of payment” they didn’t acknowledge it. So I’ve now sent a follow up email to them with that. God this is all SO stressful.

[Thunderpants]

I would contact West 28th and make it clear that you firmly dispute that any legitimate debt exists, and also ask them to send you details of all correspondence sent to you in relation to this.

Have you moved over the years, as it's possible that W28 will say they attempted to contact you at a previous address etc etc.

However, if that is the case, remember that the creditor needs to make all reasonable efforts and attempts to contact an alleged debtor. The fact that a debt agency is phoning and emailing you means that W28 must have been in possession of alternate contact details other than an address, and have chosen not to use either and have potentially just progressed straight to "debt" collection. I would make this scenario very clear to W28, as if you went to court you could argue that despite having a method to contact you, they didn't, which wouldn't do W28 any favours at all.

Nobody has ever successfully been taken to court by any of these joke outfits as far as I'm aware, however I would very quickly get any debt collection shut down by either getting a solicitor involved, or by contacting one of the specialists on these forums (WTT etc etc). Whatever you do, DO NOT ignore it.

Thanks, I have been in touch with a solicitor and they are going to write to West 28 hopefully that will put them off.
I haven't moved address and got a letter from them last year so they know my details think they just put a debt collector on commission to save them the bother or think they can frighten people who don't know the system