Bank Tax Fraud Implications

**Beck1968** · 12th January 2010 17:04

usually when a customer defaults on paying a company what he/she owes
the company can write this debt off against any tax due to the inland revenue

so what happens when the bank sells an account at a loss to a DCA icon

??

do they claim back against the inland revenue ??

or do they just take the loss ??

if the dca gains some payment but not all
do they claim a loss

some people may see where i am going with this, comments please

Beck

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 17:08

This has been discussed before a few times-I will see if I can find one of the threads.

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 17:11

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...dity-debt.html

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 17:14

Also more here;

Debt Reform

**Beck1968** · 12th January 2010 17:15

whoooooo a barage of reading .... thanks Martin

**Beck1968** · 12th January 2010 17:24

Imagine that someone smashes into your car and luckily you escape unhurt but the car is a complete mess.
It cannot function as a car any more. In accountancy-speak and insurance-speak, as well as everyday parlance, it is a write off.
You can sell it for scrap, but that's about it
But imagine if you were to sell it on to a third party as a car again. How fantastic would that be!
Of course, you wouldn't be able to do that. But that's what banks do with written-off debts. As well as writing them off to get the 'bad debt' insurance and the tax breaks they also sell the account on to debt purchasing companies

so is this a defence in court against the sum owed ???
as they would not only be recouping there loss, but also profiting from the state

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 17:30

Yes its a good question.
I had a claim against a CC provider for refund of charges.
They had sold the account on.
In their witness statement they were whinging that they sold the account at a great loss and so to have to pay back penalty charges would not be fair or right.
Of course at that time I was not aware of the procedures-or I would have deff brought it to the courts attention.
Misleading the court and signing a witness statement with a statement of truth would have had serious consequences I am sure.

**Beck1968** · 12th January 2010 17:33

let's not go passed the bank for a minute........

debtor can't pay....

bank defaults debtor........

bank terminates account......

bank enters loss on balance sheet (Bank gets Tax Break)

(debt is null ????)

thats my thinking for fighting debt collection icon

in court

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 18:04

In real terms yes the debt SHOULD be null-but we know it isnt because the OCs go on to sell it on albeit for a fraction-but the DCAs will still chase for the full amount and in many cases MORE.
The laws need changing.

**Beck1968** · 12th January 2010 18:08

Originally Posted by MARTIN3030

In real terms yes the debt SHOULD be null-but we know it isnt because the OCs go on to sell it on albeit for a fraction-but the DCAs will still chase for the full amount and in many cases MORE.
The laws need changing.

I agree the law needs changing, but......

how can a DCA icon

chase for the full amount when the bank has had the tax break and the sale of the debt

(is that not a defence against their POC icon

)

remember they couldn't get Al Capone for murder

whoooaaaa hang on .....just had shock to the head

why would a bank sell a bad debt for say 10% when they get 30% corporate tax relief

answer:- they don't

first they write off the debt and gain 30% Tax Relief
they they sell the DETAILS of the debt for say 10%

Banks nett gain 40% of outstanding debt

DCA's POC out by at least 30% yer honour

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 18:28

That just about sums it up.
Using the arguement in Court could be tricky-it would need the Judge to have a clear understanding and for the claimant to provide proof.
I am certain that the DCAs and the OC would try to hide behind their old chestnuts of the info being commercially sensitive and fight tooth and nail against having to make any disclosures.

**Beck1968** · 12th January 2010 18:29

Originally Posted by MARTIN3030

That just about sums it up.
Using the arguement in Court could be tricky-it would need the Judge to have a clear understanding and for the claimant to provide proof.
I am certain that the DCAs and the OC would try to hide behind their old chestnuts of the info being commercially sensitive and fight tooth and nail against having to make any disclosures.

Take an accountant in to explain the tax laws
and ask for the bank to disclose it's ledger

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 18:30

One way around it would be to seek an order for the OC or DCA icon

to provide a signed statement of truth to say they HAD truly been financially deprived by the lenders default.

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 18:31

Yes a forensic accountant-for around £400 they would do the job-I looked into this myself.

**Beck1968** · 12th January 2010 18:32

but the DCA icon

could not claim a statement of truth for whole amount only the amount they paid for the debt....so that would defeat a claim for the whole amount

**MARTIN3030** · 12th January 2010 18:50

yes exactly-that was my meaning.

**Beck1968** · 12th January 2010 18:52

??? Time to write a bit of a defence against DCA icon

's POC

'S on CAG

do you think
i am a little out of my depth there....more into the tax side of things

Thread: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Thread Tools

Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications

Re: Bank Tax Fraud Implications