james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 10, 2014 14:21:09 GMT
Agreed on the tax reporting. It's also worth noting that HMRC generally wants to know the country of the party paying simple loan interest so that it can be reported by country. Though maybe there's something in the structuring of Ablrate loans that would have the very welcome simplification of them all being regarded by HMRC as being UK payments. If not, we'd need reporting with appropriate breakdowns by tax jurisdiction.
I could definitely do without say having to get a taxpayer identification number from the US Internal revenue Service because I'm receiving a few hundred Pounds a year of interest from a US airline and hence have US income to report to them as well as having to be broken out on my UK tax return so I can claim the appropriate tax treaty relief.
In general I wonder how this is expected, by HMRC and other tax authorities, to work for Ablrate lenders and for each loan what the relevant tax jurisdictions and treatments are.
For Ablrate doing this as part of due diligence and documenting it for lenders could save lenders a huge amount of duplicated work in sorting out the tax position of each loan.
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Dec 10, 2014 14:56:52 GMT
A Quote from Ablrate
'From the perspective of an Ablrate lender, the loan is to the lessor in most, if not all cases and is secured against the underlying aircraft transaction.'
Hence the loan would be to the leasing company, most likely ******* rather than to the lessee or 'end user' of the aircraft. Interest would be paid to lenders from the leasing company rather than the lessee. Of course with Singapore being the registered address for ******* this still leaves the same question, however with less complexity regarding 'for each loan what the relevant tax jurisdictions and treatments are'.
[Mod note; I've removed the name of a business]
|
|
gb007
Member of DD Central
Posts: 131
Likes: 74
|
Post by gb007 on Dec 10, 2014 15:53:29 GMT
AIUI, although ******* Aircraft Leasing Pte Ltd is a Singapore registered company, each leasing transaction so far has been carried out using a special purpose vehicle, which is a Limited company registered in the UK eg ******* International Aircraft Services Ltd & ******* Aircraft Investments (UK) Ltd. Presumably the UK Ltd company is receiving the foreign lease payments and then paying out UK interest to lenders. It would be useful if ablrate could confirm this and that future transactions will also be UK based.
[Mod note; I've removed the name of a business]
[Note to Ton ⓉⓞⓃ : to see these names you don't need to login (to see go to ablrate.com & click on Completed) ]
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Dec 10, 2014 20:35:37 GMT
As a rule of thumb, please disguise names on these boards. They may well be publicised on the appropriate P2P site, be freely available all over the internet, and be front page news in the Daily Star, but we poor unpaid and apparently paranoid moderators are not monitoring the world's media to find mitigating circumstances, so have to take the failsafe view. Keep calm and continue posting.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 11, 2014 22:24:41 GMT
Ton, please discuss between moderators whether removal of P2P component company names here is really desired by the moderation team overall.
It seems like nonsense to me to say that we can't mention the names of the P2P entities. We're discussing the components of a P2P business, not some random borrower. It's perhaps of note that I think that one of the sections here is named after an entity that is getting lent the money by the investors then is lending it on, so at least one of the section names would need to have **** in it if this practice just used was universally followed!
I don't see any scope for trouble giving the full names of the various component parts of a P2P business. As investors we need to know how it's structured and it's hardly something that a P2P business can consider to be defamatory and hence a risk to moderators.
As a different problem to consider, I'm not sure that the usual borrower name restrictions are really appropriate in the Ablrate case.
The end borrower - that is, the customer ultimately leasing the aircraft in this case - might be a different matter, though if there's no loan impairment and the information is completely published in public that doesn't seem troublesome either. By the nature of the Ablrate business the information about the customers is likely to be pretty thoroughly public, usually having to be disclosed by the company leasing the aircraft and that's not in any way a negative thing given that the best known and most respected names in the business lease aircraft.
For both of those issues it'd perhaps also be useful to have Ablrate say whether they think there's anything potentially derogatory in mentioning how Ablrate is structured and what their thoughts on mentioning the public and published names of their customers are. I can't see any prospect of Ablrate saying they have any problem at all with mentioning the component companies of their business.
And with this request, unless anyone has anything else to add that should be considered, like Ablrate giving their views, it's probably best just to leave it to the moderators to discuss these issues for a while.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Dec 12, 2014 10:57:38 GMT
Ton, please discuss between moderators whether removal of P2P component company names here is really desired by the moderation team overall. It seems like nonsense to me to say that we can't mention the names of the P2P entities. We're discussing the components of a P2P business, not some random borrower. It's perhaps of note that I think that one of the sections here is named after an entity that is getting lent the money by the investors then is lending it on, so at least one of the section names would need to have **** in it if this practice just used was universally followed! I don't see any scope for trouble giving the full names of the various component parts of a P2P business. As investors we need to know how it's structured and it's hardly something that a P2P business can consider to be defamatory and hence a risk to moderators. As a different problem to consider, I'm not sure that the usual borrower name restrictions are really appropriate in the Ablrate case. The end borrower - that is, the customer ultimately leasing the aircraft in this case - might be a different matter, though if there's no loan impairment and the information is completely published in public that doesn't seem troublesome either. By the nature of the Ablrate business the information about the customers is likely to be pretty thoroughly public, usually having to be disclosed by the company leasing the aircraft and that's not in any way a negative thing given that the best known and most respected names in the business lease aircraft. For both of those issues it'd perhaps also be useful to have Ablrate say whether they think there's anything potentially derogatory in mentioning how Ablrate is structured and what their thoughts on mentioning the public and published names of their customers are. I can't see any prospect of Ablrate saying they have any problem at all with mentioning the component companies of their business. And with this request, unless anyone has anything else to add that should be considered, like Ablrate giving their views, it's probably best just to leave it to the moderators to discuss these issues for a while. Hi james /All We are not too concerned about the elemental names of a transaction being published here however for the final lessee, although public information in general, our preference would be to keep that off the boards. This is especially the case where a loan has not completed. In 99.9% of cases the transaction will be contractually done, but we don't want to make it too easy for our lessor's competitors to see with whom they are doing business or proposed business. The further complication could also be that, in some cases, some of the elements of a transaction are confidential. An example of this would be where a government is involved they have standard non-disclosure clauses on pats of the transaction (like which department is paying the lease, for example). This could cause issues on the board if we are not able to expand on an excluded conversation. So the ultimate lessee and transaction structure is something that would be best kept off-board. Regards Ablrate
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Dec 12, 2014 12:01:01 GMT
AIUI, although ******* Aircraft Leasing Pte Ltd is a Singapore registered company, each leasing transaction so far has been carried out using a special purpose vehicle, which is a Limited company registered in the UK eg ******* International Aircraft Services Ltd & ******* Aircraft Investments (UK) Ltd. Presumably the UK Ltd company is receiving the foreign lease payments and then paying out UK interest to lenders. It would be useful if ablrate could confirm this and that future transactions will also be UK based.
[Mod note; I've removed the name of a business]
[Note to Ton ⓉⓞⓃ : to see these names you don't need to login (to see go to ablrate.com & click on Completed) ]
Hi Aircraft will always be bought through an SPV and the income from the transaction will flow through the SPV and in some cases more than one (where transaction rights could be assigned). It wont always be a UK company as some offshore structures will be required dependent on the jurisdiction of the aircraft. Regards Ablrate
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Dec 12, 2014 15:19:50 GMT
AIUI, although ******* Aircraft Leasing Pte Ltd is a Singapore registered company, each leasing transaction so far has been carried out using a special purpose vehicle, which is a Limited company registered in the UK eg ******* International Aircraft Services Ltd & ******* Aircraft Investments (UK) Ltd. Presumably the UK Ltd company is receiving the foreign lease payments and then paying out UK interest to lenders. It would be useful if ablrate could confirm this and that future transactions will also be UK based.
[Mod note; I've removed the name of a business]
[Note to Ton ⓉⓞⓃ : to see these names you don't need to login (to see go to ablrate.com & click on Completed) ]
Hi Aircraft will always be bought through an SPV and the income from the transaction will flow through the SPV and in some cases more than one (where transaction rights could be assigned). It wont always be a UK company as some offshore structures will be required dependent on the jurisdiction of the aircraft. Regards Ablrate Hi all, to keep things simple for the mods I think it has to be the same rule for all non-private boards - i.e. borrower names musn't be posted. Sorry but the mods can't be expected to know / investigate individual cases so it has to be a "one size fits all" approach. Ablrate's completed loans page does give borrower names without the need to log in but that's an issue for ablrate - the same "no borrower names" rule applies on the forum. james, happy in general to discuss P2P component entities as long as the info is public. If a P2P company is lending to a component part of itself then it seems sensible to want to / be able to name it.
|
|
unmadem
Member of DD Central
Posts: 377
Likes: 181
|
Post by unmadem on Dec 12, 2014 15:37:34 GMT
Tax Statement
Early warning of a missing piece of functionality required. ablrate need to allow us to produce a tax statement showing the income received each tax year. For some reason this seems to be missed by most P2P sites in first year leading to a lot of irate emails when the tax year ends and a rushed development. So trying to be helpful and bring it to your attention now.
Good point unmadem
And can I kindly ask for the functionality for the user to specify tax year start and end dates so that companies like mine can generate appropriate statements. My year end is end January!
Thanks
Hi ablrate just wanted to check you picked up on the tax statement before it got pushed up the list by the names issue and have it on the development list for the new year.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Dec 12, 2014 16:28:19 GMT
Hi Unmadem
Yes, that is all in the hands of the developers and we will let you know when its done.
Regards Ablrate
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 12, 2014 22:20:38 GMT
james - It was me who reported the post above by gb007 in the first place and the modding out was as I expected it to be. ... (I hope I don't come across as patronising in any way, as I know how much contribution you put into the FORUM RULES thread, and consider you infinitely more experienced than myself.) Best I can say to that is don't worry about it, for sometime I'll undoubtedly end up reporting one of your own posts. It's probably best to think of reporting as "hmm, this looks interesting, is it really something that we want here?" rather than "poster x is an evil person who deliberately broke the rules by posting this". We're all human and words are open to interpretation so at some point those who hang around here enough are sure to write something that can be read differently from the way they intended it, or with insufficient circumlocution. I've reported posts by other mods, mine have been reported and I assume that this will continue, just part of life. I think the idea is to keep it clean and simple for the unpaid moderators with an all encompassing, easy to follow, time and effort saving rule. james, happy in general to discuss P2P component entities as long as the info is public. If a P2P company is lending to a component part of itself then it seems sensible to want to / be able to name it. Perhaps we should embrace an approach used at MSE: lists of posters who can act as company reps or lists of those who can have signatures promoting things. Shouldn't be too hard to get a list of p2P company components in a post in the section about the forum that mods and posters can easily refer to to check that they are OK, or can post there to suggest an addition. Starting out with Ablrate's list seems like a good way to get going.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 12, 2014 22:31:44 GMT
The further complication could also be that, in some cases, some of the elements of a transaction are confidential. An example of this would be where a government is involved they have standard non-disclosure clauses on pats of the transaction (like which department is paying the lease, for example). This could cause issues on the board if we are not able to expand on an excluded conversation. So the ultimate lessee and transaction structure is something that would be best kept off-board. For the board that could well be fine. For tax however, I think it can be a problem. As I understand the tax position I have to declare the country of the party paying the interest and if HMRC asks, I have to tell them the name of that party. So I'm not going to be willing to lend to such borrowers unless I can comply with that sort of request. I don't necessarily care about parts of entities in a chain, as long as the one that HMRC might want from me if I'm audited is available and I'm giving HMRC a correct breakdown by country, currency and exchange rate on the day of a payment for all payments I get and where I have to provide those by-country totals on my tax return. IN short, if HMRC will be happy, so will I be, because it's them I'm trying too satisfy.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 5,836
|
Post by duck on Dec 13, 2014 7:38:29 GMT
For tax however, I think it can be a problem. As I understand the tax position I have to declare the country of the party paying the interest Possibly a little pedantic but whilst this is 'easily' dealt with where individuals are concerned (e.g Bondora, Finnish borrower pays through Bondora in Estonia I declare to HMRC interest paid in Finland - country of arising) but the waters become more muddied where companies have Luxembourg or multinational type arrangements. In these instances the country of the party paying the interest and the country of the interest arising can be different.
I don't view this as a major issue but a touch of due dil might be necessary.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 13, 2014 8:12:42 GMT
Being pedantic is good in this context. We do need to be sure that we're getting the correct information to HMRC and that it's probably too complicated given the structures for the lenders themselves to work out what the correct situation is. Much better if we all discuss with Ablrate so they can work out how to get it done efficiently and none of us ends up getting HMRC excited.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Dec 13, 2014 12:47:12 GMT
The further complication could also be that, in some cases, some of the elements of a transaction are confidential. An example of this would be where a government is involved they have standard non-disclosure clauses on pats of the transaction (like which department is paying the lease, for example). This could cause issues on the board if we are not able to expand on an excluded conversation. So the ultimate lessee and transaction structure is something that would be best kept off-board. For the board that could well be fine. For tax however, I think it can be a problem. As I understand the tax position I have to declare the country of the party paying the interest and if HMRC asks, I have to tell them the name of that party. So I'm not going to be willing to lend to such borrowers unless I can comply with that sort of request. I don't necessarily care about parts of entities in a chain, as long as the one that HMRC might want from me if I'm audited is available and I'm giving HMRC a correct breakdown by country, currency and exchange rate on the day of a payment for all payments I get and where I have to provide those by-country totals on my tax return. IN short, if HMRC will be happy, so will I be, because it's them I'm trying too satisfy. Hi Not a problem. The loans docs give all those details. Regards Ablrate
|
|