Things about to get very serious and much more real?

[eek]

This is an Isle of Man company which appears to be chasing Isle of Man loans. If this is the case then Isle of Man mediation will be required.
Mediation

We need to wait and see if Felicitas can get anything right here but if they are using IoM mediation services that is a problem as it may suggest that people can argue their case themselves and that would be a very BAD idea given the complexity and minutiae of detail that will be required here.

[GregRickshaw]

We need to wait and see if Felicitas can get anything right here but they are using IoM mediation services that is a problem as it may suggest that people can argue their case themselves and that would be a very BAD idea given the complexity and minutiae of detail that will be required here.

Thank you really appreciate this. I did have a look at the ADR bodies you suggested and there are truly non on there which jump out as being anywhere near experienced enough to solve this massively complex issue.

I am a gambling man so I would say this is yet another pressure point being applied, though this time I'm taking notice. Mainly because of what you said regarding IOM etc., I along with a lot of others are looking at working with specialists lawyers recommended by ETC.

Thank you for all your help and please keep your insights coming, a lot of us are lost and vulnerable right now, me included

[eek]

Another few thoughts - I suspect I will have a lot of these today

1) Mediation is once again (alongside the number of letters sent) something designed to look like they are trying to settle things both fairly and cheaply (both would be factors in deciding costs if this went to court).

2) Mediation looks cheap but you don't know who to appoint as a mediator so see if ETC or someone can identify a suitable person.

3) Mediation means they every case will be settled on its own evidence and merit (that isn't any different from before but it's worth repeating here for what I will say at the end).

4) This stuff is going to get complex quickly as it relates to loans, trusts and beneficial parties.

So

1) Find all the paperwork you have including any and all emails you have

2) avoiding the paperwork portal may backfire on you in mediation.

3) identify any discrepancies, i.e. paper work with incorrect dates, names and addresses on them.

4) Don't do this yourself whatever you think - this is not mediation as in a small claims court one person's word against another - this is far more complex and serious than that - and I suspect Felicitas is doing this as it makes it a numbers game where each case is treated individual. 1000 cases and even if you win just 100 of them due to poor defense they are quids in.

5) Just because you don't have the paperwork saying the money received is a loan that doesn't mean the money wasn't a loan (we've covered that before and it's probably essential that I say it again).

Finally Mediation sounds like something you can do yourself but in this case I suspect it's what they want you to think so that you go in with stupid statements like the debt is time served or similar arguments rather than valid arguments (this is why I'm saying you need proper legal advice).

To fight this you will need decent suitably qualified legal advice - go and find it and be prepared to pay for it. I suspect that unless you find and use said advice you will lose in mediation (and that's one reason why they are doing things this way - it's very much for their benefit not yours).

[lowpaidworker]

To fight this you will need decent suitably qualified legal advice - go and find it and be prepared to pay for it. I suspect that unless you find and use said advice you will lose in mediation (and that's one reason why they are doing things this way - it's very much for their benefit not yours).

poor tax payers... more money/costs. Its a joke. HMRC need to really get involved here but I doubt they will.

[eek]

poor tax payers... more money/costs. Its a joke. HMRC need to really get involved here but I doubt they will.

Why? This has got zero things to do with HMRC and tax.

This is all about the consequences of receiving / borrowing money from a trust based on the IoM..

And as I've explained many times before this is the problem with all these schemes as the money always became multiple different things (to HMRC it's income, to the Trust it's a loan that can be recalled and would need to be repaid) at the same time. And because courts only look at the bit they care about both statements can be completely true at the same time.

[DanJackiels]

Another few thoughts - I suspect I will have a lot of these today

1) Mediation is once again (alongside the number of letters sent) something designed to look like they are trying to settle things both fairly and cheaply (both would be factors in deciding costs if this went to court).

2) Mediation looks cheap but you don't know who to appoint as a mediator so see if ETC or someone can identify a suitable person.

3) Mediation means they every case will be settled on its own evidence and merit (that isn't any different from before but it's worth repeating here for what I will say at the end).

4) This stuff is going to get complex quickly as it relates to loans, trusts and beneficial parties.

So

1) Find all the paperwork you have including any and all emails you have

2) avoiding the paperwork portal may backfire on you in mediation.

3) identify any discrepancies, i.e. paper work with incorrect dates, names and addresses on them.

4) Don't do this yourself whatever you think - this is not mediation as in a small claims court one person's word against another - this is far more complex and serious than that - and I suspect Felicitas is doing this as it makes it a numbers game where each case is treated individual. 1000 cases and even if you win just 100 of them due to poor defense they are quids in.

Finally Mediation sounds like something you can do yourself but in this case I suspect it's what they want you to think so that you go in with stupid statements like the debt is time served or similar arguments rather than valid arguments (this is why I'm saying you need proper legal advice).

Equally just because you don't have the paperwork saying the money received is a loan that doesn't mean the money wasn't a loan (we've covered that before and it's probably essential that a say it again).

To fight this you will need decent suitably qualified legal advice - go and find it and be prepared to pay for it. I suspect that unless you find and use said advice you will lose in mediation (and that's one reason why they are doing things this way - it's very much for their benefit not yours).

thanks for the pointers. when i hear from Felicitas about their wish to pursue, i'll take all the above on board.

[lowpaidworker]

Why? This has got zero things to do with HMRC and tax.

This is all about the consequences of receiving / borrowing money from a trust based on the IoM..

And as I've explained many times before this is the problem with all these schemes as the money always became multiple different things (to HMRC it's income, to the Trust it's a loan that can be recalled and would need to be repaid) at the same time. And because courts only look at the bit they care about both statements can be completely true at the same time.

Not my point. This saga is becoming a never ending pit of money for the end user. This was all supposed to be a simple way to circumnavigate complex IR35 law. Not disagreeing that the devil in the detail unfortunately has or is going to cause immense pain and finacial issues.

Point is some end user of the scheme paid a substatial whack of the gross invoice and now has HMRC and now the trustee demading money.

Would have been better off just paying 50% to HMRC and be done with it.

Bascially Tax advisors that sold these schemes (especially those with supposed knowledge) have f**ked everyone over and off they walk with huge comissions scott free and there is almost nothing that can or will be done about this.

Maybe a simplistic view but certainly not far from the truth

[eek]

Not my point. This saga is becoming a never ending pit of money for the end user. This was all supposed to be a simple way to circumnavigate complex IR35 law. Not disagreeing that the devil in the detail unfortunately has or is going to cause immense pain and finacial issues.

Point is some end user of the scheme paid a substatial whack of the gross invoice and now has HMRC and now the trustee demading money.

Would have been better off just paying 50% to HMRC and be done with it.

Bascially Tax advisors that sold these schemes (especially those with supposed knowledge) have f**ked everyone over and off they walk with huge comissions scott free and there is almost nothing that can or will be done about this.

Maybe a simplistic view but certainly not far from the truth

I'm not arguing with any of that - however this is a mistake individuals made (whether it was from greed or necessity as some of the examples I've seen recently were) and sadly they need to deal with the consequences of it.

[lowpaidworker]

I'm not arguing with any of that - however this is a mistake individuals made (whether it was from greed or necessity as some of the examples I've seen recently were) and sadly they need to deal with the consequences of it.

agree to disagree on this. I think a vast majority of individuals just didnt want the IR35 issue as why on earth have these schemes multiplied since IR35 was intorduced. Why now after the loan charge do they continue to operate and still grow.

HMRC are the collecters of tax. All this agression and anger towards them is for my part wrong. Lets all go camp outside Know Trust House in central london. They are paid experts and yet they continue to peddle or try to peddle avoidance schemes via offshore so called havens or lets be clear Crown dependencies. These directors are not overseas people. They might for tax purposes but they have vested interests in UK including property and assets.

The govt introduced the retrospective Loan charge so now lets introduce a retrospective mis-selling schcemes. They need to be held accountable. Dont forget they have creamed off 12.5-18.5% of an invoice for very little overhead. So where has that money gone ?

Lets forget about the personal vitrolic directed at O'Harra or Norman. They are doing their job. MPs have already made clear they are not interested in supporting a govt change of stance.

So liken the whole thing to another corrupt business...... drugs. Do you penalise the addict or go after the peddler....... I know what the law does

[eek]

agree to disagree on this. I think a vast majority of individuals just didnt want the IR35 issue as why on earth have these schemes multiplied since IR35 was intorduced. Why now after the loan charge do they continue to operate and still grow.

HMRC are the collecters of tax. All this agression and anger towards them is for my part wrong. Lets all go camp outside Know Trust House in central london. They are paid experts and yet they continue to peddle or try to peddle avoidance schemes via offshore so called havens or lets be clear Crown dependencies. These directors are not overseas people. They might for tax purposes but they have vested interests in UK including property and assets.

The govt introduced the retrospective Loan charge so now lets introduce a retrospective mis-selling schcemes. They need to be held accountable. Dont forget they have creamed off 12.5-18.5% of an invoice for very little overhead. So where has that money gone ?

Lets forget about the personal vitrolic directed at O'Harra or Norman. They are doing their job. MPs have already made clear they are not interested in supporting a govt change of stance.

So liken the whole thing to another corrupt business...... drugs. Do you penalise the addict or go after the peddler....... I know what the law does

That is completely off topic for this thread so if you want to continue this argument please start a new thread.