Reply to: Loan Demand what can I do to pre-empt

[ThomasRostron]

Still not clear of my next step

Thanks for all your replies guys:

The consensus so far : I could be forced to pay Mr Umbrella Trust (or more likely Mr Oppurtunistic LoanBuyer, who he sells the loans onto). Reardless of any settlement to HMRC I have made.

If they get even some of the loan I will have to sell my house and my businesses (lively hood).

Given that my Umbrella Trust (overseas) who I cannot contact and seem to have have disappeared. However I discovered through some googling they are owned by a much bigger Financial group of companies. This is even more worrying as I think they will now own the loan.

I have no relationship with the bigger parent companies.
My Options
1] Do I risk the Hornet's nest and contact the unknown parent company, asking them to release the loan.
or
2] Stop worrying, bide my time, wait for someone to demand monies then seek professional advice? (remember I have had no contact from anyone for over 5 years)

Just to recap Loan terms:
Loan period was upto 2029.
They can contest the claim globally in any country and in multiple countries concurently if relevant.

They ofcourse always communicated (by phone) they would never collect the loans, but never in writing.

[lowpaidworker]

IMHO - On paper they may seem separate events but they are intrinsically linked - two dogs are fighting over the same dinner - only one can win. The 'dinner' is only so big.

PS - One dog claims dinner is his (tax) other dog claims dinner is his (loan) - they are linked l

David, yes they are linked and we who signed the agreements know that. However legally they separate flows of money where the two organisations don't really care much about the other.

Now here is the really crap part. When you settle with HMRC they have the power to enforce payment preference over any other debts such as loans or credit cards. Only a mortgage payment is considered higher priority. This ultimately means they can take their back tax money first once they have agreed you have enough money to live on. Now next scenario is Mr Umbrella comes looking for his loan repayment and as HMRC have already legally enforced their repayment you don't have much money to pay back these so called loans. So best you contest the debt or statutory demand because whilst HMRC generally don't make people bankrupt these so called firms recalling the loans don't really give a damn, and that is a harsh lesson I have recently learnt.

[regron]

Hyperthetically speaking then. You sign a legally binding settlement contract with HMRC and don't release the loans.

A third party claiming to own the loans come along and call them in. What's your plan?

No, they are linked.... you can tell me the emperor has clothes on all you like - but as I've shown - when the rubber hits the road the link will become apparent.

Bottom line is HMRC will get their tax, they are the top dog and the loan scheme providers will get nothing.

[webberg]

No, they are linked.... you can tell me the emperor has clothes on all you like - but as I've shown - when the rubber hits the road the link will become apparent.

Bottom line is HMRC will get their tax, they are the top dog and the loan scheme providers will get nothing.

That is dangerous thinking.

If it is dangerous thinking powered by knowledge, professional expertise or personal experience, then I think you owe it to those reading these threads to explain your background in a verifiable way.

If you are expressing a hope based on a logical thinking process that you have arrived at without the benefit of professional training or analysis, then again, I think you should say so.

[eek]

No, they are linked.... you can tell me the emperor has clothes on all you like - but as I've shown - when the rubber hits the road the link will become apparent.

Bottom line is HMRC will get their tax, they are the top dog and the loan scheme providers will get nothing.

You may think that - courts however have already reached different conclusions.

[DavidD]

No, they are linked.... you can tell me the emperor has clothes on all you like - but as I've shown - when the rubber hits the road the link will become apparent.

Bottom line is HMRC will get their tax, they are the top dog and the loan scheme providers will get nothing.

[eek]

IMHO - On paper they may seem separate events but they are intrinsically linked - two dogs are fighting over the same dinner - only one can win. The 'dinner' is only so big.

PS - One dog claims dinner is his (tax) other dog claims dinner is his (loan) - they are linked l

As I stated above and Webberg posts above - they aren't linked.

HMRC look at the transaction as a whole from the work you did to the money arriving in your bank account.

The loan scheme providers are looking at merely the very last bit - them "lending" you money (you gave them through the work you did) and sending it to your bank account.

Yes it might seem completely unfair but it is merely the other side of the tricks that were used to pretend the money wasn't income being used against you.

[webberg]

IMHO - On paper they may seem separate events but they are intrinsically linked - two dogs are fighting over the same dinner - only one can win. The 'dinner' is only so big.

PS - One dog claims dinner is his (tax) other dog claims dinner is his (loan) - they are linked l

I'm afraid they are not.

Not on paper or otherwise.

Take heed of the above and if you get a demand for the loan go and get some advice.

[DavidD]

IMHO - On paper they may seem separate events but they are intrinsically linked - two dogs are fighting over the same dinner - only one can win. The 'dinner' is only so big.

PS - One dog claims dinner is his (tax) other dog claims dinner is his (loan) - they are linked l

[regron]

HMRC have nothing to do with your loans getting recalled and are therefore totally separate events. Hmrc will still expect you to fulfill your settlement contract, whatever happens with the loans and possible recall.

Might be worth speaking to a professional and look at getting your loans released as you have settled. Depending on any possible IHT liability, it may be cheaper and would take the possibility of loan recall away.

If I look at my own situation (which I'm sure is like many others) it would not be in HMRCs interest for me to be pursued for the 'loan' I couldn't pay both - so my settlement with HMRC would be in jeopardy - something I'm sure they don't want..

[DavidD]

If I look at my own situation (which I'm sure is like many others) it would not be in HMRCs interest for me to be pursued for the 'loan' I couldn't pay both - so my settlement with HMRC would be in jeopardy - something I'm sure they don't want..

[eek]

Personally, I don't expect a court to have such a narrow view - I believe it would fall over at the point of looking at the documentation as my 'loan' contract is full of holes and does not reflect a 'normal' loan agreement - furthermore, I believe there are problems with the way it has actually been executed - all just IMHO.

It would also be a calamity for HMRC for courts to start to insist that these loans are legitimate - something I believe government and HMRC would 'work' to make sure does not happen.

In regard to the house transfer just to re-iterate in this scenario it is actually someone I know not not me ! (asking for a friend and all that !) I also know it was at the point of moving to a new house - this was several years ago at around the time APNs were first issued and I know that he has now settled.

I think it will be many years, more likely never, that a user of a loan scheme is asked to actually make a payment to a fraudster this gives plenty of time to legitimately and proactively structure your affairs.

I've continually talked about Schrodinger money - once you entered into the scheme HMRC's viewpoint of what that money is wasn't the same as the scheme providers and with 2 different courts making decisions it's perfectly possible that in the narrow definitions they are being asked to judge on both could find against you.

And it wouldn't matter 1 bit to HMRC if the courts decided when looking at the narrow bit they have been asked about that the money was a loan - heck you agreed to receive the money as a loan to avoid paying tax - a lot of taxpayers would regard it as justice if those cheating the system ended up paying twice over.

In fact a few cases like that would help HMRC out no end - as it could point at the really dire circumstances of joining a scheme - temporary access to money on which you pay tax and then are forced to repay the money - a few stories like that and the schemes may finally be killed off once and for all.

[DavidD]

Personally, I don't expect a court to have such a narrow view - I believe it would fall over at the point of looking at the documentation as my 'loan' contract is full of holes and does not reflect a 'normal' loan agreement - furthermore, I believe there are problems with the way it has actually been executed - all just IMHO.

It would also be a calamity for HMRC for courts to start to insist that these loans are legitimate - something I believe government and HMRC would 'work' to make sure does not happen.

In regard to the house transfer just to re-iterate in this scenario it is actually someone I know not not me ! (asking for a friend and all that !) I also know it was at the point of moving to a new house - this was several years ago at around the time APNs were first issued and I know that he has now settled.

I think it will be many years, more likely never, that a user of a loan scheme is asked to actually make a payment to a fraudster this gives plenty of time to legitimately and proactively structure your affairs.

[regron]

Under bankruptcy they can unwind any asset transfer within the last 5 yrs prior to bankruptcy, if it was purely down to hiding them. Something to be wary of if not already.

Bankruptcy offences - Citizens Advice

Hi,

I'm in almost exactly the same boat - paying HMRC back over 10 years etc. I've stated on here many time that, in my opinion, the reclaiming of the loans is just a shakedown which will never survive the courts and I will never ever voluntarily pay a single penny no matter what the circumstances.

Having said that I do consciously structure my finances so that if it ever got to the stage that I was being made bankrupt, which would be inevitable given the size of the loan, that my pursuer would get nothing. A game that the 'loan companies' played to good effect with HMRC.

I know several people who do this and I also know someone who has ensured that they had zero assets with their family home in their wife's name etc. just in case.

Just to be clear, I have and I am paying HMRC for claimed tax, in the above examples I'm talking about protecting myself from (imho criminal) fraudulent claims for a 'loan' that never existed.

Good luck and stay strong.

[eek]

It may be a shakedown but I wouldn't want to be that a court would throw it out.

It's possible that the court may only be able to look at a narrow part of the full story and so ignore how the money arrived into the scheme anD just look at the bit between the final trust / company and your bank account.(Yes it's not right but I suspect that may be the end result).

As for your other point - I hope you moved house as you transferred the home into your wife's name - I've seen people trying to avoid care home bills fail on that basis (as it's seen as an avoidance measure without justification rather than a practical one). For future reference you can pull the move trick even after the symptoms are obvious (just keep some equity aside).