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

[uplock]

Not sure you should be posting the above? Seems morally inconceivable given the stress poeple are going through. If I am honest it makes me want to vomit given nothing is for sure. Think I studied the wrong profession clearly.

Apologies if this offends anyone but just merely stating what is obvious from the above

Sorry - did not mean to cause any stress. Like many here, I have also been having sleepless nights recently and considering how a stupid mistake made 10 years ago is coming back to haunt me.

I would agree there is no right answer in the best course of action. Do nothing or do something, no one knows what the outcome will be.

For my peace of mind, I stopped wanted to be a victim and do something about it. Others I am sure will have a different view point. In this brother hood of the oppressed all are right! :-)

[Gengus55]

Gladstone Solictors

We have become aware that

Gladstones Solicitors Ltd (based in Knutsford)

Felicitas Solutions (based in Ramsay IOM)

Have been issuing demands for interest payments and repayment of loans that were made by:

ECS International Trustees (IOM) Ltd as a lender who appear to have acquired their interest in the debt from Black Lake Ltd, formerly IQ Consultants Ltd.

(ECS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baker Tilly, IOM, 2a Lord St, Douglas).

There is a threat of legal action if you don't pay.

Or, you can pay 12% of the alleged balance outstanding and have all loans and interest cancelled.

(helpfully, the letter includes contact details of the Samaritans).

Be aware:

Having all or part of the loan written off for less than full value is more than likely a "relevant step" for the purposes of Part 7A and therefore WILL create a tax charge.

The arrangements leading to the making of the loan may be such that the debt can be challenged legally.

There are a number of other debatable elements in the chain of events here.

We will be advising Big Group clients on this action tomorrow.

In the short term however, the letter invites you to "dispute the amount due" and we recommend that you do.

if you are not in receipt of advice on any involvement you had in IQ - NOW is the time to rectify that.

Anybody who has been chased for a PCN (Parking Charge Notice) will be well versed in the company that is Gladstone Solicitors, sending countless and worthless demands for a parking fine that is not a fine but an invoice, threats that a bailiff will come and take your TV, threatening to give you a CCJ without going to court, challenge them with a SAR and you wont hear from them again.

Bottom feeders who feed on the weak minded.

[jbryce]

Was advised not to respond by several experts; Suggest you get in touch with enquiriesatetctax.co.uk for guidance - very helpful to date and straight to the point; FYI: FCA, IOMFSA, media to name a few have been notified and are following the matter closely; All the best;

Groan...wondered when your recommendation would arrive.

[lowpaidworker]

Sorry - did not mean to cause any stress. Like many here, I have also been having sleepless nights recently and considering how a stupid mistake made 10 years ago is coming back to haunt me.

I would agree there is no right answer in the best course of action. Do nothing or do something, no one knows what the outcome will be.

For my peace of mind, I stopped wanted to be a victim and do something about it. Others I am sure will have a different view point. In this brother hood of the oppressed all are right! :-)

sorry I didn't mean this as critique. Just some simple sums tells you how much its costing to clean this up when from what I have read on this thread it appears no one impacted really needs to repay the loans. The whole thing seems a complete scam. I'm personally having problesm digesting how much some individuals will have to pay to clean this up. The effective rate of tax must be heading northwards to towards 75% of what they earnt.

I am in the same boat although my loans havent been recalled. The whole thing is distressing and I totally sympathise with you.

[lowpaidworker]

Tax avoidance is a rich man's game - sadly the scheme providers didn't tell you that fact...

even sadder is most people on here are not rich. I'm sure Jimmy Carr didnt give two hoots but a lot of people in this mess dont earn in year what he gets in a week possibly a day.

There appears something annoyingly circular with this mess.

[jbryce]

sorry I didn't mean this as critique. Just some simple sums tells you how much its costing to clean this up when from what I have read on this thread it appears no one impacted really needs to repay the loans. The whole thing seems a complete scam. I'm personally having problesm digesting how much some individuals will have to pay to clean this up. The effective rate of tax must be heading northwards to towards 75% of what they earnt.

I am in the same boat although my loans havent been recalled. The whole thing is distressing and I totally sympathise with you.

Yup a really good scam would be to have one set of solicitors send you threatening letters and another (just down the road - say) offer to fix it for you...
Why is it that so many of these firms are in the North West of England????

[uplock]

sorry I didn't mean this as critique. Just some simple sums tells you how much its costing to clean this up when from what I have read on this thread it appears no one impacted really needs to repay the loans. The whole thing seems a complete scam. I'm personally having problesm digesting how much some individuals will have to pay to clean this up. The effective rate of tax must be heading northwards to towards 75% of what they earnt.

I am in the same boat although my loans havent been recalled. The whole thing is distressing and I totally sympathise with you.

Yes this is all a scam and we should not forget it!

These people are using the expressed terms of an artificial loan agreement to collect their pound of flesh and more. Ultimately, these are not commercial loans but artificial transactions to avoid tax, as argued by HMRC and the UK courts, and accepted by many who have settled with HMRC.

It is likely an IOM courts would look at the implied terms of these loans - these being the promotional material by the promoters, scheme illustrations, technical arguments etc.. given as a basis to enter into these artificial loans. Ultimately the courts will want to assess the substance of the transaction over its simple legal form. Why did Mr X enter into the contract with an IOM trust and what was the ultimate purpose of the transaction? The loans, I don't believe can be looked at in isolation, without understanding its role in an artificial transaction that sort some tax avoidance benefits.

If the trustees felt they could get these loans back they would have tried in the past to do so. They have instead off loaded them to Felicitas Solutions (for some money I assume) to have a punt.

We may have been stupid in getting involved in these schemes, but I am going to try to avoid becoming a further victim if I can help it.

[webberg]

These people are using the expressed terms of an artificial loan agreement What evidence do you have that the agreement is "artificial? What even is an artificial agreement? Do you not think that starting form an "artificial" agreement, HMRC would have an unanswerable case that some deliberate or planned fraud is in play? to collect their pound of flesh and more. Ultimately, these are not commercial loans but artificial transactions to avoid tax, as argued by HMRC and the UK courts, and accepted by many who have settled with HMRC. It has suited individuals and HMRC to so far ignore the "artificial" elements as that complicates - a lot - any attempt to settle.

It is likely Really? Why would you think that? Why do you think a sovereign state would wilfully ignore its own law? an IOM courts ... Ultimately the courts will want to assess the substance of the transaction over its simple legal form. Really? On what analysis is that based? Why did Mr X enter into the contract with an IOM trust and what was the ultimate purpose of the transaction? The loans, I don't believe can be looked at in isolation, without understanding its role in an artificial transaction that sort some tax avoidance benefits.

I'm not being unkind here, but we know nothing of your background in terms of qualifications or experience to be making such bold and sweeping statements.

I know the main guy at one of the firms quoted here and I think he is a thoroughly competent individual whose views are worthy of respect. Many of the tax professionals who come here are also doing their best to be open and honest and give advice that is verifiable. Even those tax people who have had prior connections with the schemes are usually open about their history. All this is as it should be.

I've indicated above where I think your analysis is difficult or would cause more problems. I suspect that your views are driven as much by justifiable anger and frustration as a cold analysis of fact. I do however think that we need to be careful about separating solid advice based on relevant analysis and speculation which has a tendency to be seized upon by those in desperation. (I've lost count of how many clients I've had to disappoint after they "read on a forum" that something was true when in fact it was not).

Please - if your view has credibility please explain it or your qualifications for expressing it.

[piebaps]

Tax avoidance is a rich man's game - sadly the scheme providers didn't tell you that fact...

Nail on head - hit.

Sir Amyas Morse said in his report

"HMRC’s evidence, set out more fully below, is that approximately 40% of people who exclusively used schemes from the 2011-12 tax year onwards and have not yet settled their tax affairs had a 2017-18 income of less than £30,000".

This is far from rich men and explains some of the worry felt by many of the scheme users. Remember that in Hoey, he was only marginally better off in the scheme as the bulk of the tax benefits had been swallowed in scheme fees.

[uplock]

I'm not being unkind here, but we know nothing of your background in terms of qualifications or experience to be making such bold and sweeping statements.

I know the main guy at one of the firms quoted here and I think he is a thoroughly competent individual whose views are worthy of respect. Many of the tax professionals who come here are also doing their best to be open and honest and give advice that is verifiable. Even those tax people who have had prior connections with the schemes are usually open about their history. All this is as it should be.

I've indicated above where I think your analysis is difficult or would cause more problems. I suspect that your views are driven as much by justifiable anger and frustration as a cold analysis of fact. I do however think that we need to be careful about separating solid advice based on relevant analysis and speculation which has a tendency to be seized upon by those in desperation. (I've lost count of how many clients I've had to disappoint after they "read on a forum" that something was true when in fact it was not).

Please - if your view has credibility please explain it or your qualifications for expressing it.

Webber - Apologies you are right. These are my own educated ramblings. However, I do not consider my self an expert of contract law etc..., so these are only my thoughts/opinions.

Sorry for muddying this issue for the forum members.