IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands

[seriouslyman]

I'm sorry but the way you deal with this is to understand what you did and the legal implications and to then address the facts and the law. The above is unfortunately incorrect.

You did NOT invoice your end client. One of the entities involved in the scheme invoiced the end client (probably via an agency).

The trust did NOT invoice you. Instead the promoter vehicle made a contribution to the trust.

You did not lend YOUR money back to YOU. The trust claimed to have had the money and decided - entirely at their discretion - to lend you money. They could have decided to keep all of the money and not make a loan and there would have been absolutely nothing - legally - you could have done about that. You were entirely reliant upon the promises of people who I suggest have shown themseleves to be less than trustworthy.

Felicitas were not part of the original arrangement and consequently are an inappropriate party to demand money from, even if your analysis was correct, (which I'm afraid it is not).

I understand the anger and the frustration. It will be followed by deflection of blame and then embarrassment at having been duped by these people. Eventually though you will arrive at a place in which you can make a cold and calculated assessment of your legal position and the options available and from their you can begin to make some logical choices. It's a journey and the sooner you begin the sooner you get there.

I hear what you're saying and absolutely appreciate your view.

My post was trying (badly albeit) to just show IMO how farcical this is all is.

BUT to clarify as others may have operated this way too - I operated through a Ltd. Company at he time and did indeed invoice my end client. The Trust had no dealing whatsoever with the end client and did not even know who they were. Once the Trust had been informed by me through their portal how many days had been billed that month they sent my Ltd. Co an invoice which I duly paid from the company bank account. This was then paid back to me personally (not into the Ltd. Co) minus a fee. There was no agency or other 3rd party involved as my relationship with my end client was direct.

[why]

May I ask the pro's here before parting with more money.

Has there been a successful outcome on any of these matters\demand letters mentioned here on these forums?I read a lot similar to this thread but never see any successful results mentioned!

As far as I'm concerned my P11D for 2010/11 tax year shows that money as discharged and Darwin Partnership FAQ(on P11D) also states that. See below

Date loan discharged; "This shows the date that YOUR loans were REPAID"....etc

Now clearly if that is not the case then they have deliberately lied\misled\misinformation.

[DealorNoDeal]

I hear what you're saying and absolutely appreciate your view.

My post was trying (badly albeit) to just show IMO how farcical this is all is.

BUT to clarify as others may have operated this way too - I operated through a Ltd. Company at he time and did indeed invoice my end client. The Trust had no dealing whatsoever with the end client and did not even know who they were. Once the Trust had been informed by me through their portal how many days had been billed that month they sent my Ltd. Co an invoice which I duly paid from the company bank account. This was then paid back to me personally (not into the Ltd. Co) minus a fee. There was no agency or other 3rd party involved as my relationship with my end client was direct.

It sounds like you were in one of the Ltd co hybrid schemes. (webberg coined a name for these but I can't remember what it was)

Nevertheless, I suspect the money ceased to belong to you (your company) once it was paid to the trust. You might think the trust lent you your own money but that's probably not true in law.

[DealorNoDeal]

May I ask the pro's here before parting with more money.

Has there been a successful outcome on any of these matters\demand letters mentioned here on these forums?I read a lot similar to this thread but never see any successful results mentioned!

As far as I'm concerned my P11D for 2010/11 tax year shows that money as discharged and Darwin Partnership FAQ(on P11D) also states that. See below

Date loan discharged; "This shows the date that YOUR loans were REPAID"....etc

Now clearly if that is not the case then they have deliberately lied\misled\misinformation.

I believe WTT successfully batted away repayment demands from the Montpelier loan scheme.

In your case, though, it sounds like you're in a strong position to simply tell the chancers to foxtrot oscar.

[webberg]

It sounds like you were in one of the Ltd co hybrid schemes. (webberg coined a name for these but I can't remember what it was)

Nevertheless, I suspect the money ceased to belong to you (your company) once it was paid to the trust. You might think the trust lent you your own money but that's probably not true in law.

Double limited.

Otherwise entirely correct.

[webberg]

May I ask the pro's here before parting with more money.

Has there been a successful outcome on any of these matters\demand letters mentioned here on these forums?I read a lot similar to this thread but never see any successful results mentioned!

As far as I'm concerned my P11D for 2010/11 tax year shows that money as discharged and Darwin Partnership FAQ(on P11D) also states that. See below

Date loan discharged; "This shows the date that YOUR loans were REPAID"....etc

Now clearly if that is not the case then they have deliberately lied\misled\misinformation.

Our experience is that the first time we were approached by clients looking to resist loan repayment demands, we took steps and those demands have not been renewed. Our clients did not repay a penny. That company has since been through a somewhat radical and enforced change of structure although there remains some doubt as to the location and ownership of the alleged loans. (This is Montpelier).

Our next experience is ongoing. We are in the research phase as to the appropriate response and those of our clients who are impacted will be hearing from us shortly. Those who are involved in the schemes from which loans are being demanded and who are not clients, will also be made aware of what we can do. (This is K2/Hyrax).

The present iteration of loan demands we are researching now. Whilst we cannot and do not promise that our strategy for resisting repayment demands is foolproof, by using our extensive connections in this space: our expertise: our experience: our technical knowledge, it will be a long and hard battle for any alleged lender in going after our clients. (This is IQ, Winchester, Garraway, Darwin, Sanzar[?])

[webberg]

As far as I'm concerned my P11D for 2010/11 tax year shows that money as discharged and Darwin Partnership FAQ(on P11D) also states that. See below

Date loan discharged; "This shows the date that YOUR loans were REPAID"....etc

Now clearly if that is not the case then they have deliberately lied\misled\misinformation.

You have to realise that the schemes worked by allegedly converting money you earned into a form that was not taxable - a loan.

In order to support that presentation, it was necessary for the scheme promoters to pay lip service to the various tasks required if a "loan" was claimed to be in existence.

This includes P11D.

I suggest that in some instances, the P11D was as much a fiction as the "loan". As such relying upon a wantonly inaccurate document (and in our experience, these forms are very often incorrect anyway) in Court is probably not sensible.

You cannot pick and choose which documents are real and have commercial effect and which do not.

So yes, you may have been deliberately misled or even lied to. However, there is NO REGULATION IN THIS AREA.

Therefore even if all the documents you saw, all the conversations you had, all the subsequent paper trails are nothing more than fabrications designed to maintain a fiction, there is nobody to complain to about mis-selling or similar.

It's a hard truth but one that is necessary for all to understand so that you can deal with the situation you are in.

[H20]

Our experience is that the first time we were approached by clients looking to resist loan repayment demands, we took steps and those demands have not been renewed. Our clients did not repay a penny. That company has since been through a somewhat radical and enforced change of structure although there remains some doubt as to the location and ownership of the alleged loans. (This is Montpelier).

Our next experience is ongoing. We are in the research phase as to the appropriate response and those of our clients who are impacted will be hearing from us shortly. Those who are involved in the schemes from which loans are being demanded and who are not clients, will also be made aware of what we can do. (This is K2/Hyrax).

The present iteration of loan demands we are researching now. Whilst we cannot and do not promise that our strategy for resisting repayment demands is foolproof, by using our extensive connections in this space: our expertise: our experience: our technical knowledge, it will be a long and hard battle for any alleged lender in going after our clients. (This is IQ, Winchester, Garraway, Darwin, Sanzar[?])

I was involved with Sanzar and Garraway over a number of years. My P11D's from Sanzar showed 'Loans' were paid or discharged. HMRC came for me for Tax and NI on these amounts and I paid. Later years with Garraway P11D's showed 'Loans' were not paid or discharged, HMRC came for me for Tax and NI on these amounts and I paid. So damned if you do, Damned if you don't. Therefore do not pay Sacco s--t or his scumbag crew any monies. HMRC treat pre 2011 and post 2011 the same. Taxable income for purposes of paying Tax and NI.

However, I would draw your attention to the original HMRC case against Rangers FC Whereby Dr Heidi Poon was the one ( out of Three) dissenting voice which came out in favour of HMRC by stating that in her opinion:
the dissenting opinion by Dr Poon concentrates on a purposive interpretation (in line with Ramsay) of the underlying transactions. Dr Poon relies upon the cases of Garforth and Aberdeen Asset Management and concludes that the loans made through the EBT were payments of emoluments subject to PAYE and NIC.

This dissention goes also to the Supreme Court Judgement whereby HMRC won the case on appeal. This states that:
From my findings of fact, the juristic purpose of the loans that gives rise to their
recoverability is totally devolved from the commercial purpose that gives rise to the
contingency of repayment enforcement. The contingency of repayment enforcement
144
is designed not to materialise; it can be interpreted as an ‘anti-Ramsay device’ in the
form of ‘a commercially irrelevant contingency’ [Lord Nicholls]. In respect of how
the scheme was ‘intended to operate’, it was the ‘manifested intentions of the parties’
that the loans would never be enforced for repayment – that is how the scheme was
intended to work. For those employees who took a more cautionary 5 approach towards
this remote contingency, they were given the assurance that in the unlikely event that
the loans were enforced for repayment, Rangers would indemnify them against the
loan repayment (as in the cases of Mr Evesham and Mr Coventry). To date, no loan
repayment has ever been enforced; and from the witnesses’ evidence, whether it was
10 Mr Grey or his clients, or the corporate employees, the understanding was clear: the
loans would not be enforced and were intended to be renewed indefinitely till the
death of the employees. As a House of Lords judgment, Scottish Provident gives
authority to disregard the contingency of repayment enforcement of the loans as
commercially irrelevant. In determining the composite effect of the transaction,
15 regard is to be given to how the scheme was ‘intended to operate’. The composite
effect of the transaction in the instant case – the end result of ‘emoluments’ – is
therefore undisturbed once Lord Nicholls’ judgment is followed through, by
disregarding the commercially irrelevant contingency of the loans being enforced for
repayment.

In conclusion I would suspect that as the judgement of the supreme court states, the intention of the 'Loan' were that they were never intended to be repaid and therefore if Sacco s--t and his cronies want any money out of me, they need to go back to court, overturn the judgement of the supreme court, by proving they were 'Loan's ' in the true commercial sense...

Really ???

[why]

You have to realise that the schemes worked by allegedly converting money you earned into a form that was not taxable - a loan.

In order to support that presentation, it was necessary for the scheme promoters to pay lip service to the various tasks required if a "loan" was claimed to be in existence.

This includes P11D.

I suggest that in some instances, the P11D was as much a fiction as the "loan". As such relying upon a wantonly inaccurate document (and in our experience, these forms are very often incorrect anyway) in Court is probably not sensible.

You cannot pick and choose which documents are real and have commercial effect and which do not.

So yes, you may have been deliberately misled or even lied to. However, there is NO REGULATION IN THIS AREA.

Therefore even if all the documents you saw, all the conversations you had, all the subsequent paper trails are nothing more than fabrications designed to maintain a fiction, there is nobody to complain to about mis-selling or similar.

It's a hard truth but one that is necessary for all to understand so that you can deal with the situation you are in.

Thanks for that. Still , if its all fictitious then surely so is their stance fictitious, it's a made up debt, one that never existed (as we all know) and the whole thing a fabrication.

[webberg]

In conclusion I would suspect that as the judgement of the supreme court states, the intention of the 'Loan' were that they were never intended to be repaid and therefore if Sacco s--t and his cronies want any money out of me, they need to go back to court, overturn the judgement of the supreme court, by proving they were 'Loan's ' in the true commercial sense...

Really ???

It may indeed have been the "intention" at the time.

However, the tax side of the equation has failed, leaving behind the legal consequences of agreements that YOU signed, to be dealt with.

I've said before and I repeat again.

A tax Court - no matter how high - cannot determine whether - for contract law purposes - the alleged loan exists and that the various rights and obligations are enforceable or not.

To get an answer on that, you would need to go to the appropriate Court and ask them.

Do not confuse tax analysis with contract analysis.