• 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!

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.

Previously on "Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters"

Collapse

  • Whowouldhavethought
    replied
    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:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by MrO666 View Post
    Interesting.......

    ....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..............
    Going back to a point I made a very long time ago

    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:


  • MrO666
    replied
    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:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    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:


  • MrO666
    replied
    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:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    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?
    The money didn't disappear. You agreed to give it via the scheme operator to the trustees less the scheme's charges. The trustees then loaned the money to you. That would be the normal route the money took. The money can be both a loan and income at the same time.

    Leave a comment:


  • VillageIdiotDan
    replied
    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).
    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:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    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'.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneSurfing
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post

    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'.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneSurfing
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneSurfing
    replied
    Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • MrO666
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by GoneSurfing View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    Originally posted by GoneSurfing View Post

    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.
    Last edited by GregRickshaw; 25 May 2023, 15:11.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X