Excluded from the McCann settlement

[clause out]

"and I’m asking why the lobby group don’t focus on that"

Good question.

Who/what body be best to direct this question to.

[woody1]

All I’m asking for is that the people who are still affected be treated the same way as those who are to benefit from the McCann Review.

Currently, McCann only applies to unsettled loans 2010-2017.

Specifically, which of the following do you want it extending to:

1. people who paid the Loan Charge
2. settled loans 2010-2017
3. unsettled loans 1999*-2010
4. settled loans 1999*-2010

* I've put 1999 because this was when the original Loan Charge applied from. I presume HMRC chose this year because there weren't any earlier loan schemes.

[loanchargehurt]

"and I’m asking why the lobby group don’t focus on that"

Good question.

Who/what body be best to direct this question to.

Members of LCAG need to convince LCAG to focus attention on those who’ve been excluded from the McCann Review settlement terms (as opposed to arguing about the £70k for those who can access the terms, or arguing for a further review. Those who can access the McCann terms have 90 days to accept the new offers, so they couldn’t hold off for 90 days even if they thought a further review was a possibility).

[loanchargehurt]

Currently, McCann only applies to unsettled loans 2010-2017.

Specifically, which of the following do you want it extending to:

1. people who paid the Loan Charge
2. settled loans 2010-2017
3. unsettled loans 1999*-2010
4. settled loans 1999*-2010

* I've put 1999 because this was when the original Loan Charge applied from. I presume HMRC chose this year because there weren't any earlier loan schemes.

All of the above plus those who were scammed into post 2017 loans.

Before 2017 there is an argument that Promoters believed the scheme worked, but subsequent to a Supreme Court decision in 2017 and a new retrospective charge that got Royal Assent in 2017, there can be no such argument.

HMRC tried in their own words to disrupt the businesses of the Promoters with legislation such as the enabler legislation in 2017, but all they succeeded in doing was driving the legitimate professional businesses away leaving room for the real cowboys.

[woody1]

What you are asking for would put tens of thousands of tax avoiders in a better position than ordinary tax payers.

• substantially less employer and employee NICs paid
• no interest for late payment
• discounted tax

It would be a "brave" Chancellor who signed that off.

And BTW, what about people who used DR schemes, since 1999, which didn't involve loans? Or are only loans deserving of special treatment?

[loanchargehurt]

What you are asking for would put tens of thousands of tax avoiders in a better position than ordinary tax payers.

• substantially less employer and employee NICs paid
• no interest for late payment
• discounted tax

It would be a "brave" Chancellor who signed that off.

And BTW, what about people who used DR schemes, since 1999, which didn't involve loans? Or are only loans deserving of special treatment?

She/he just did it for 32,000 but for some unknown reason chose to exclude the other 24,000 people, many of whom are in a worse position and arguably more deserving (pre-DR) or were more compliant & so arguably more deserving (post-DR & pre-DR).

HMRC have long argued that they amount to less than 0.2% of the tax paying population.

Most of the mess was caused by HMRC’s efforts to get around the decisions of the highest courts in the land with a new retrospective tax and then their subsequent efforts to mislead Parliament & cover that up.

(most DR schemes are covered as considered by HMRC to be loans or quasi-loans. All else can be offered same or similar terms)

[woody1]

She/he just did it for 32,000...

I know, and I'm surprised it hasn't come in for some flak. Getting them to extend it further, though, will be a monumental mountain to climb.

[loanchargehurt]

I know, and I'm surprised it hasn't come in for some flak. Getting them to extend it further, though, will be a monumental mountain to climb.

No more of a mountain than what LCAG currently seems focused on, which is doing away with the £70k cap and having another enquiry. LCAG have convinced themselves that a judge led inquiry would lead to someone else paying tax on the untaxed loans they received. It would be a comical belief if it wasn’t so sad and serious.

[woody1]

No more of a mountain than what LCAG currently seems focused on, which is doing away with the £70k cap and having another enquiry. LCAG have convinced themselves that a judge led inquiry would lead to someone else paying tax on the untaxed loans they received. It would be a comical belief if it wasn’t so sad and serious.

Shame no one from LCAG is here to put their side.

On their website, they say they've got more than 3000 members. I wonder how many stand to benefit from McCann as it is? And how many have loans that are excluded?

Anyway, what are you going to do? Just hope something comes of what they're doing, or something else?

[loanchargehurt]

Shame no one from LCAG is here to put their side.

On their website, they say they've got more than 3000 members. I wonder how many stand to benefit from McCann as it is? And how many have loans that are excluded?

Anyway, what are you going to do? Just hope something comes of what they're doing, or something else?

As someone pointed out recently the submitted accounts of LCAG suggest they have no more than 1,000 paying members.

it would be helpful if those running LCAG would see sense but that hasn’t happened before now. We need the LCAG members to come to their senses and pressure those who have been running LCAG. I note there have been recent additions to the list of Directors and can’t help but wonder if those who have been driving the group are about to make their exit.
https://find-and-update.company-info...mpany/11332027