LCAG needs you. Maybe you need LCAG.

[dammit chloe]

If you are affected in any way by the Loan Charge or are considering settlement, before you do please think about joining LCAG. The more people we have the more chances we have of nixing the Loan Charge.

If you have been following the financial and political news, outside of all that Brexit nonsense, you will see that there have been a lot of articles on the Loan Charge and its debilitating nature and its vindictive approach. Some successes that are down to LCAG and it's rag tag band of amateur volunteers and small amount of professional backup are.

1. An EDM to make the LC prospective which has now got 140 odd MPs of all parties signing it. 10 in the last week or so alone.

THE 2019 LOAN CHARGE - Early Day Motions

2. Managed to get a Westminster Hall debate on the issue with all parties being represented and speaking against the LC.

3. Forced it onto the HoL Finance Bill agenda even though it wasn't scheduled. This resulted is a scathing report on the LC, its implementation and HMRC's attitude.

4. We now have an All Party Parliamentary Group who have taken evidence from many sources ( except HMRC and the Treasury who declined ). A report will be published shortly. Their open letter to Jonathan Thompson should not be missed.
Over 100 MPs have signed up and is still growing

5. Many media articles that have turned from unsupportive to supportive. In particular the FT wrote an editorial that was damning of the Loan Charge.

6. Set up a hotline to support people who are feeling it's all got too much. LCAG has saved lives. No question.

"If you feel that you are unable to cope, text ‘LCAG HELP’ to 81025 and a member of our team will call you back"


There are many more successes that are all helping to build a more accurate and disturbing picture of the Loan Charge, HMRC and the Treasury. Be in no doubt change this and IR35 will be our next target so you will be helping both fights.

We still need more pressure, more members and more people who will take action.

We need people to lobby MPs. LCAG can help with all this ( especially info and rebuttals ) but we need as many constituents as possible to book an appointment. This has been where a lot of the above has come from. MPs turned from unsupportive to supportive through clear articulation of the subversion of the rule of law.

So please join up. We ask for a contribution of £150 to the cause but this is just for expenses and the small of amount of professional advice we have to pay for. Everyone else is a pure volunteer.

This can still be stopped, especially with a possible change of regime in the Treasury.

2019 Loan Charge Action Group (LCAG) - Loan Charge Action Group

If you are not directly affected but want to help or push back against HMRC and the tax system that seems to want to punish contractors. Please consider supporting the crowdfunder against tax retrospection.

Fight Unjust Government Retrospective Laws - Before They Impact You

I hope I haven't broken any forum guidelines

[Specsgalore]

please think about joining LCAG. The more people we have the more chances we have of nixing the Loan Charge.

You're clearly a member of the LCAG, so great to have you posting. However, I know of a couple of guys that have been emailing for weeks trying to join the LCAG, but nobody seems to answer them?

Also, has the LCAG (or do you know any person/organisation that has) been considering lobbying the particularly supportive MPs (Ed Davey, Wes Streeting and Tommy Sheppard come to mind) for an equally retrospective change to the statute of limitations around claims for professional negligence/miss-selling specifically connected to 'disguised remuneration' schemes? It would seem only right that, if HMRC can come after us for money as the result of negligent advice dating back 20 years, we should equally be able to retrospectively sue those who advised us back then - don't you think? However, as it stands, (as HMRC doesn't seem keen to go after those who got us into this mess and collect any taxes due directly from them) the vast majority of private actions against scheme designers and promoters would now be long-since time barred......

[dammit chloe]

You're clearly a member of the LCAG, so great to have you posting. However, I know of a couple of guys that have been emailing for weeks trying to join the LCAG, but nobody seems to answer them?

Also, has the LCAG (or do you know any person/organisation that has) been considering lobbying the particularly supportive MPs (Ed Davey, Wes Streeting and Tommy Sheppard come to mind) for an equally retrospective change to the statute of limitations around claims for professional negligence/miss-selling specifically connected to 'disguised remuneration' schemes? It would seem only right that, if HMRC can come after us for money as the result of negligent advice dating back 20 years, we should equally be able to retrospectively sue those who advised us back then - don't you think? However, as it stands, (as HMRC doesn't seem keen to go after those who got us into this mess and collect any taxes due directly from them) the vast majority of private actions against scheme designers and promoters would now be long-since time barred......

Could you tell me which email they are posting too?

Generally, people sign up on main site and they get two week as guest to ask some questions in the guest forum to see if it is something they wish to sign up fully for. I often answer questions there. Due to the sheer volume of work that is on with our gang of volunteers something could have been missed. To manage lots of inquiries on a one to one basis at the moment may just not be possible at the moment with all that is going on.

The mis-selling option is tricky. There has been some activity but actually pursuing a claim is really, really difficult unless someone in a professional body, with professional insurance advised you to do something and gave you absolutely no warning of risk or said it was 100% risk-free and you have all the evidence. We have had a company looking at this as a no-win, no-fee option but for most, even in recent cases, it is too difficult to prove any negligence. Going back further in time I am not sure would help all but a very few and they would likely to have to fund it. I know of only one person in LCAG that has gone that route and his case is well evidenced.

It has to be remembered that at the time, as the law stood all this was legal.

At the moment the sole focus of LCAG is trying to put a spanner in the works of the Loan Charge. Not to say that other actions may not follow on behind but LC is most urgent.

[Centrick]

An EDM to make the LC prospective which has now got 140 odd MPs of all parties signing it.

I watched the Westminster Hall debate (November 2018?) and was really encouraged by how many MPs spoke with passion against the diabolical 2019 Loan Charge. However, I have just noticed that John Hayes, who came across as a really strong supporter, for some reason withdrew his support for EDM #1239 in December 2018. Any idea why he did that?

[dammit chloe]

I watched the Westminster Hall debate (October 2018?) and was really encouraged by how many MPs spoke with passion against the diabolical 2019 Loan Charge. However, I have just noticed that John Hayes, who came across as a really strong supported, for some reason withdrew his support for EDM #1239 in December 2018. Any idea why he did that?

It is not that he has changed his view we understand, he still opposes it. I think he removed his name from all EDMs at the time. There are two possible speculations. First is that he was being lined up for a government post and they can't sign EDMs, the other that he lost faith in the use of EDMs as useful tool for anything. The latter seems to be held more likely these days.

[Centrick]

...speculations. ....he lost faith in the use of EDMs as useful tool for anything. The latter seems to be held more likely these days.

This doesn't compute with me? Surely, even if John Hayes thinks EDMs aren't useful, well-supported EDMs (i.e. in terms of numbers who sign them) do at least alert the Government to the extent of argument against the 2019 Loan Charge - else why should we get excited by a rising tally of MPs supporting the EDM? Confused.....

Also, is it known why Clive Lewis and Thelma Walker withdrew their support?

[dammit chloe]

This doesn't compute with me? Surely, even if John Hayes thinks EDMs are useful, well-supported EDMs (i.e. in terms of numbers who sign them) do at least alert the Government to the extent of argument against the 209 Loan Charge - else why should we get excited as the tally of MPs rises?

Many MPs don't like EDMs and I can understand why. They are abused with nonsense ones that are pure virtue signalling or self-congratulatory. SNP in particular like to do this. As I say ours wasn't singled out by John Hayes and still supportive as far as I understand.

Maybe the first reason I gave was the one ( he was knighted around the same time coincidentally ). We don't know for sure.

In our case the EDM is useful because it is about changing a policy. it is also why MPs are more hesitant to sign as it actually means something. So for us it is a good visual marker of growing cross party support. It is where the original proposers deserve kudos. It is not one that will draw immediate widespread support as it mentions "tax avoidance".

So good for visibility and growing support. Enough on that, enough on the APPG and a debate could be forced. Who knows. I am no expert on how Westminster really works.

[Centrick]

EDMs .....ours wasn't singled out by John Hayes and still supportive as far as I understand.

Is it known why Clive Lewis and Thelma Walker withdrew their support?

[dammit chloe]

Is it known why Clive Lewis and Thelma Walker withdrew their support?

Clive Lewis is still supportive from what we can tell. He unsigned quite a while ago now when EDM was around the 90 mark. Suspect he was unsure on party groupthink.

Thelma Walker we think is because she become PPS to John McDonnell or something like that. No further knowledge on that one.

[Centrick]

APPG

Anyone know when the APPG is due to publish its report into the LC?