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

[eek]

I did not sign a loan agreement means "I did not sign a loan agreement".

The only thing I signed was a contract for employment with sanzar, I signed NOTHING else. The contract of employment for sanzar contains nothing which could even be remotely attributed to being paid in loans.

Those are the bare facts. I did not sign anything else, I have all the paperwork.

Right that's enough discussion. I'd better get back to my work.

Go and read post 219 and the next few posts - how else did the part of the money which wasn't the minimum wage get paid to you.

Using magic beans? That money was paid to you by some means that avoided tax, so the question is how and it could really have only been done via a loan (albeit a loan under a different word to the word loan).

You are quite possible the person Felicitas and Gladstones are looking for - someone who will argue that it wasn't a loan up to the point Gladstones get out their thesaurus and produce evidence showing that it was..

As I said earlier - just get the etctax later and send it to them - give them work today and get them to pick an easier target as at the moment I suspect their target for phase 3 could be you.

[webberg]

The Sanzar scheme ran in several iterations.

It's true that one did not have a "loan" by name.

However it did include the payment of money from a third party.

What would a Judge decide a reasonable man might have seen this payment as?

It's money that must have been:

Salary
Gift
Distribution from investment
Something else

Clearly not a salary or investment as it was not taxed.

A gift? Remember this is a reasonable man test.

Something else?

A loan does not have to be made under any written agreement.

Whatever, we've been over this ground before. You are free to chose whatever interpretation you wish.

[cojak]

Here is post #219:

They never mentioned the word ‘loan’ to me. I still have emails from Sanzar explaining how ‘the solution’ worked. Copy and pasted below.

**We at Sanzar can take you on as an employee and your agency or client is invoiced as your timesheets are submitted. Once your agency has paid for your services, Sanzar immediately pay you your 85% having deducted all tax and National Insurance.

The 85% that you receive consists of two payments. Both of these payments are received in conjunction with each other. One of these payments is your PAYE wage. This is based upon the UK national minimum wage of £5.76 per hour and you pay full Tax and NI on this wage, thereby fulfilling your legal obligations upon this wage.

The Second portion of your 85% is received by yourself via an off shore trust in the form of a payment on account. These payments on account are resolved at the end of the tax year through execution of documentation that ensures they are non taxable.

[cojak]

But since Superfly has gone back to work I think that we can lay this one to rest for the moment.

[NeedTheSunshine]

I did not sign a loan agreement means "I did not sign a loan agreement".

The only thing I signed was a contract for employment with sanzar, I signed NOTHING else. The contract of employment for sanzar contains nothing which could even be remotely attributed to being paid in loans.

Those are the bare facts. I did not sign anything else, I have all the paperwork.

Good luck arguing that in court. You really need to take advice from a tax advisor that knows how Sanzar operated.

[DealorNoDeal]

Here is post #219:

The Second portion of your 85% is received by yourself via an off shore trust in the form of a payment on account. These payments on account are resolved at the end of the tax year through execution of documentation that ensures they are non taxable.

That doesn't sound like the money was lent. But maybe there was other contractual paperwork which did refer to loans.

[Iter]

That doesn't sound like the money was lent. But maybe there was other contractual paperwork which did refer to loans.

If money was received as a ‘beneficiary of a trust’ then would that be repayable? From the income side I can see HMRC expecting tax to be paid. But from the trust/ scheme perspective is that a clear cut case of not being repayable?

[DealorNoDeal]

If money was received as a ‘beneficiary of a trust’ then would that be repayable? From the income side I can see HMRC expecting tax to be paid. But from the trust/ scheme perspective is that a clear cut case of not being repayable?

I don't think they'd get very far in court claiming the money was a loan when it had originally been stated, in writing, that it was a "payment on account".

[eek]

That doesn't sound like the money was lent. But maybe there was other contractual paperwork which did refer to loans.

I don't think they'd get very far in court claiming the money was a loan when it had originally been stated, in writing, that it was a "payment on account".

I will use this as it's a quick demonstration Understand your Self Assessment tax bill: Payments on account - GOV.UK

Payment on Account is advanced payments before the money is due to be paid - hence it is a loan...

[webberg]

Go and look at a tax case called P A Holdings.

Gives you the gist of how this iteration worked.