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

[H20]

Harsh but fair.

As with everyone on here affected I have posted a few responses to reflect my personal feelings and to try to enact some sense from it all. Whilst I agree and do not deny that there is a real difference between contractual law and tax law. They are not mutually exclusive.

I would implore all of you to take the time to read the original ruling at the FTT (First Tier Tribunal), but especially the dissention in the appendix by Dr Heidi Poon.
She states in her dissention paper as does Lord Hodge in the appeal decision that these loans have ‘no commercial value’. Therefore what was the intention of the loan, the ruling states they were not ‘Shams’ however was the intention to operate a real money lending /loan scheme or was it for the purposes of tax avoidance. The ruling is for the latter, hence HMRC win appeal. In his summing up (again read the ruling !!) Lord Hodge states that “ I agree with Dr Poon in her dissenting judgement in the FTT when she stated (para 181) that the legislative code for emoluments has primacy over the benefits code in relation to loans”.

In addition, I have a close friend who is a Barrister and specialises in commercial law. They have told me that it would be highly unlikely that this would ever go to court, but in addition has stated that any action taken by Felicitas / Gladstones would have to pass the ‘ Clean Hands Doctrine in law (No me neither, again look it up !! ). This is embedded in international law, although General immoral or corrupt conduct is not enough to warrant application of the clean hands doctrine. To prevail, a party must demonstrate that its opponent engaged in inequitable behaviour that is related to the subject matter of the litigation. My advice is that this would stand.

Finally, I would say and agree again that these IOM / Malta s—t bags are the worst kind of humans, dealing in misery and targeting vulnerable people like us.
I understand that there are two kinds of people involved in this, those that have settled with HMRC ( i freely admit that i am one) , and those that have not, and are still fighting HMRC ( genuine good luck to you). The Felicitas / Gladstones approach is to target all, as they do not know who has settled, in the hope that those who have not succumbed to the conclusion that by paying off the loan or agreeing a settlement fee, will negate or restrict the HMRC for asking for the money back as taxable income.
Currently the supreme Court ruling says HMRC can. “ Death & Taxes”.

[why]

I'd take HMRC out of the equation for the moment, this has nothing to do with it.

The stance IMHO is whether the letter sent out has any 'fight' in a court of law and whether this so called 'loan' was actually real or not. I think that's what it boils down to, bonafide loan or created for tax avoidance

[NickLeeson2]

The scheme promoters will be looking at this thread rubbing there hands together as cracks start to form. Don't give them the satisfaction. It annoys us all, we are all in a similar situation having been mis-sold magic beans in the past.

My personnel stance is I would rather spend money fighting them , than giving into them. To date I have spent no money as a result of their junk mail. There will be people out there who will and unfortunately have not yet found this site.

If/ when the time comes I need to take things further I will contact the Webberg's of the world and see what my options are.

[DealorNoDeal]

The stance IMHO is whether the letter sent out has any 'fight' in a court of law and whether this so called 'loan' was actually real or not. I think that's what it boils down to, bonafide loan or created for tax avoidance

Playing devil's advocate, if I was Felicitas/Gladstones, I certainly wouldn't fancy my chances in court.

[eek]

Playing devil's advocate, if I was Felicitas/Gladstones, I certainly wouldn't fancy my chances in court.

Which jurisdiction though - the IoM may be more generous to them than a UK court...

[why]

Exactly, my stance is ignore these 'people' and any demands. If people did pay up then whats to stop them re-issuing a demand in a decades time, there isn't and its not worth the risk as clearly they cant be trusted.

Until I hear that they have been successful in court, I wont be engaging with them.

[eek]

I'd take HMRC out of the equation for the moment, this has nothing to do with it.

The stance IMHO is whether the letter sent out has any 'fight' in a court of law and whether this so called 'loan' was actually real or not. I think that's what it boils down to, bonafide loan or created for tax avoidance

As people have stated here multiple times - it's possible it could be both a bonafide loan and created for tax avoidance.

Just because you don't think the answer is fair doesn't make it true.

Exactly, my stance is ignore these 'people' and any demands. If people did pay up then whats to stop them re-issuing a demand in a decades time, there isn't and its not worth the risk as clearly they cant be trusted.

Until I hear that they have been successful in court, I wont be engaging with them.

Once they are successful in court you've lost. You need to ensure they aren't successful in court..

[DealorNoDeal]

Which jurisdiction though - the IoM may be more generous to them than a UK court...

Or it could be the opposite. These schemes have tarnished the reputation of the IoM, and there can't be a single judge on the Island who isn't aware of the scandal.

[why]

As people have stated here multiple times - it's possible it could be both a bonafide loan and created for tax avoidance.

Just because you don't think the answer is fair doesn't make it true.



Once they are successful in court you've lost. You need to ensure they aren't successful in court..

Ok, now we are narrowing it down, thanks for clarification. So I'm clear, i'm not personally thinking fair or unfair, I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, I've never stated if its fair or not!

So, it appears that a loan can be created AND created for the purpose of tax avoidance BUT it's still a bonafide loan? Next step then, does it pass 'clean hands' or possibly whether or not the loan 'never was'?

So my stance would be until the 'first one goes to court' I will not be engaging with them.

[eek]

Ok, now we are narrowing it down, thanks for clarification. So I'm clear, i'm not personally thinking fair or unfair, I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, I've never stated if its fair or not!

So, it appears that a loan can be created AND created for the purpose of tax avoidance BUT it's still a bonafide loan? Next step then, does it pass 'clean hands'

So my stance would be until the 'first one goes to court' I will not be engaging with them.

Once again you clutch at straws provided by someone who (like me) isn't a lawyer but unlike me is involved and therefore may not be thinking rationally.

Clean Hands Doctrine: UK law; Principles of Unclean Hands has an explanation of it - I don't think it offers you the miracle / hope you think it does.

And as I should have made clear you need to ensure that if and when this comes to court the first case is one that stops the claims in it's tracks otherwise the decision will be made and you will have lost.