Excluded from the McCann settlement

[loanchargehurt]

I don't think you are aware how deep this goes.

LCAG have been described by Webber (on here) as a sub-group of WTT. LCAG act as secretariat to the APPG and control who the APPG meets and what they get to hear. More often than not it was WTT who were invited, though Ray Trew also got an invite to sell his wares. The Directors of LCAG are members of WTT. Ray Trew's firm Castlemaine Associates acted as LCAG accountants (before Castlemaine got a winding-up order from HMRC).

At the time of the Morse Review LCAG focused heavily on those with no open enquiries & pushed it with the APPG. The two Directors of LCAG had no open enquiries (because their scheme was undisclosed). HMRC objected and Jim Harra described these as the most "egregious". But Morse effectively pardoned those with pre-DR loans where there was no open enquiry. This left behind those who had an open enquiry. You may recall that HMRC resisted repayments for those who'd settled pre-DR loans where there had not been full disclosure (rather than reasonable disclosure). Those who had no open enquiry and hadn't settled were home-free. Those who had disclosed their loans and so had an open enquiry, though not subject to the Loan Charge, were left behind and are still being pursued by HMRC under s684 notices.

Then in regard to post-DR loans LCAG sold a litigation and with it came 'advice' on not disclosing loans in the 2019 Tax Return other than in the white space. That litigation I think was to be through former promoter Andrew Thornhill. No such litigation has ever materialised but it does look like the funds are dwindling as per LCAG's published accounts. LCAG's accounts are a bit behind perhaps because their accounting firm, Ray Trew's Castlemaine Associates, have a winding-up order from HMRC! Have LCAG used the funds raised for the purpose for which they were raised?
Fundraiser by Loan Charge Action Group LCAG : LCAG Litigation Action
LC ACTION GROUP overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
CASTLEMAINE ASSOCIATES LTD overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

WTT are certainly another matter.
They sold themselves as experts in the contracting industry and as tax investigation specialists despite no previous involvement in the contracting industry and zero litigation experience. The main Director, G Webber, did have previous experience with Rebus in selling promises of legal action against Promoters which then came to nothing and Rebus evaporated with everyone losing their money. G Webber did have previous involvement with Elysian Fuels which was an unregulated biofuel investment scheme that also collapsed, leaving investors with worthless shares and prompting mis-selling claims.

The first resolution WTT sold was to write-off loans back in 2017. Big Group members were charged for the privilege before WTT seem to have realised that writing-off loans gave rise to the equivalent of a PAYE charge. Oops. Never mind, on with the next resolution sale, promoted with a claim of a 65% chance of defeating the loan charge by arguing employers are responsible for the tax. My friend was charged £160 to join Big Group in 2016 plus £18 per month subscription. Lucky for him he missed the loan write-off. Then in 2018 he was charged a further £1,800 to join this resolution, then in 2019 he was invoiced at least another £900 for a "Contribution to Litigation Fund"(I'm trying to establish if that was a part payment). These figures all include VAT. VAT is added to sales, not to a litigation fund. WTT accounts do not show any litigation fund. The accounts though do show millions in profits for WTT. HMRC would have benefitted by the amount of the vat on sales and the corporation tax on the profits, and WTT benefitted from the profits. My friend saw no litigation. In 2023 my friend asked for the return of his "Contribution to Litigation Fund", but WTT refused quoting the terms of joining the Big Group while saying "Litigation with HMRC will take time..." . I can show you WTT selling their wares via CUK articles where WTT were claiming in 2019 to have cases in the Tribunal system. It has been pointed out to my friend that what WTT have been selling has had zero chance of success since 2017. I have been shown that legislation was introduced in 2017 to deny the PAYE credit. So WTT's claim of a 65% chance of success has been BS since 2017.

WTT also promoted and sold non-disclosure of loans in the 2019 Tax Return.


Eventually WTT did take a Judicial Review in 2025 where they were criticised for making claims but bringing no evidence. They had their backside kicked. Apparently there was an extra fee of £1,200 to WTT to be part of the Judicial Review...plus the legal fees!
It makes for interesting reading: White & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] EWHC 1600 (Admin) (27 June 2025)
My friend tells me WTT are still selling victims more JR's !

My friend is considering action against WTT. There may be many others in the same boat. I struggle to see how the promotion and selling by WTT differs from any other Promoter? Indeed, it is arguably worse as the law was clear AND people were already in a desperate place. Did WTT check the ability of clients to pay HMRC in the event of defeat, before taking money from them with a promise of 65% of success that WTT just made up and which clearly was complete rubbish.

My original point of this thread was to find out if there are others in the same position of being excluded by McCann who still frequent here. It is very interesting that the lobbying of the APPG has led to the outcome of the McCann Review which gives better terms only to those who still haven't agreed settlement. Did LCAG & WTT tell the APPG that they had promoted and sold non-disclosure, or did they mislead the APPG to think that those who hadn't managed to settle were the only ones who needed help with affordability? Maybe Eek had a point, maybe we do need separate lobbying of the APPG to point out that the outcome is completely perverse in that those who complied have been treated the worst.

you know that
loanchargehurt isn’t going to answer the question because that would reveal who he really is and there is something very off about him.

Put it this way he’s mentioned things in here that only those involved in selling schemes would know and nothing they have posted since my last post changes my view about who the poster is and his motives. GB has form in denying he is GB

You seem to have managed to create a mob mentality to attack anyone who might expose those whom you heavily promoted and now wish to protect. So I am taking the opportunity you have provided to repeat what I posted earlier.

What would it matter who exposed it? Yet you want to cover it all up and consign it to the past. Why?

[loanchargehurt]

[/QUOTE]

The white space declaration on those 2019 returns didn't turn out too bad.

It was nothing to do with what they sold for 10 years though was it?

The APPG and McCann seem unaware that a CIOT firm sold non-disclosure and they proposed better terms not because of any technical argument, but because they were led to believe that those who hadn't settled were simply the people who couldn't afford to do so. Neither WTT nor LCAG seem to have confessed to what they did.

McCann gave them a lucky escape because up to that point those people were due the loan charge, plus six years back interest, plus penalties. A very lucky escape while others are left behind.

[loanchargehurt]

[/QUOTE]

Yes, your choice of replying to parts of comments and ignoring others, while always going back to your same tactic.

For the second time of asking:
Tell us which of GB's points you disagree with.

It is another dumb question that deserved to be ignored. Can you list me his main points and then maybe I can tell you if I disagree. List them accurately mind, not your filtered interpretation thereof.

[eek]

You seem to have managed to create a mob mentality to attack anyone who might expose those whom you heavily promoted and now wish to protect. So I am taking the opportunity you have provided to repeat what I posted earlier.

What would it matter who exposed it? Yet you want to cover it all up and consign it to the past. Why?

Given that you were not here in 2010 onwards to provided advice to people - it’s a bit rich to criticize people who were here and recommending the limited options that they knew about to people who turned here for advice.

as such I’m treating you and your criticism with the complete and utter total contempt it deserves.

Heck just looking at your posts all I see is a newbie attacking long standing posters and I really can’t be arsed anymore.

so unless and until you are removed I will be taking a break from here - because I can’t be arsed to deal with someone whose motive is both dubious and utterly pointless because whatever you want isn’t achievable - HMRC want the money they believe is owed and nothing is going to solve that issue

[loanchargehurt]

I don't think you are aware how deep this goes.

LCAG have been described by Webber (on here) as a sub-group of WTT. LCAG act as secretariat to the APPG and control who the APPG meets and what they get to hear. More often than not it was WTT who were invited, though Ray Trew also got an invite to sell his wares. The Directors of LCAG are members of WTT. Ray Trew's firm Castlemaine Associates acted as LCAG accountants (before Castlemaine got a winding-up order from HMRC).

At the time of the Morse Review LCAG focused heavily on those with no open enquiries & pushed it with the APPG. The two Directors of LCAG had no open enquiries (because their scheme was undisclosed). HMRC objected and Jim Harra described these as the most "egregious". But Morse effectively pardoned those with pre-DR loans where there was no open enquiry. This left behind those who had an open enquiry. You may recall that HMRC resisted repayments for those who'd settled pre-DR loans where there had not been full disclosure (rather than reasonable disclosure). Those who had no open enquiry and hadn't settled were home-free. Those who had disclosed their loans and so had an open enquiry, though not subject to the Loan Charge, were left behind and are still being pursued by HMRC under s684 notices.

Then in regard to post-DR loans LCAG sold a litigation and with it came 'advice' on not disclosing loans in the 2019 Tax Return other than in the white space. That litigation I think was to be through former promoter Andrew Thornhill. No such litigation has ever materialised but it does look like the funds are dwindling as per LCAG's published accounts. LCAG's accounts are a bit behind perhaps because their accounting firm, Ray Trew's Castlemaine Associates, have a winding-up order from HMRC! Have LCAG used the funds raised for the purpose for which they were raised?
Fundraiser by Loan Charge Action Group LCAG : LCAG Litigation Action
LC ACTION GROUP overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
CASTLEMAINE ASSOCIATES LTD overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

WTT are certainly another matter.
They sold themselves as experts in the contracting industry and as tax investigation specialists despite no previous involvement in the contracting industry and zero litigation experience. The main Director, G Webber, did have previous experience with Rebus in selling promises of legal action against Promoters which then came to nothing and Rebus evaporated with everyone losing their money. G Webber did have previous involvement with Elysian Fuels which was an unregulated biofuel investment scheme that also collapsed, leaving investors with worthless shares and prompting mis-selling claims.

The first resolution WTT sold was to write-off loans back in 2017. Big Group members were charged for the privilege before WTT seem to have realised that writing-off loans gave rise to the equivalent of a PAYE charge. Oops. Never mind, on with the next resolution sale, promoted with a claim of a 65% chance of defeating the loan charge by arguing employers are responsible for the tax. My friend was charged £160 to join Big Group in 2016 plus £18 per month subscription. Lucky for him he missed the loan write-off. Then in 2018 he was charged a further £1,800 to join this resolution, then in 2019 he was invoiced at least another £900 for a "Contribution to Litigation Fund"(I'm trying to establish if that was a part payment). These figures all include VAT. VAT is added to sales, not to a litigation fund. WTT accounts do not show any litigation fund. The accounts though do show millions in profits for WTT. HMRC would have benefitted by the amount of the vat on sales and the corporation tax on the profits, and WTT benefitted from the profits. My friend saw no litigation. In 2023 my friend asked for the return of his "Contribution to Litigation Fund", but WTT refused quoting the terms of joining the Big Group while saying "Litigation with HMRC will take time..." . I can show you WTT selling their wares via CUK articles where WTT were claiming in 2019 to have cases in the Tribunal system. It has been pointed out to my friend that what WTT have been selling has had zero chance of success since 2017. I have been shown that legislation was introduced in 2017 to deny the PAYE credit. So WTT's claim of a 65% chance of success has been BS since 2017.

WTT also promoted and sold non-disclosure of loans in the 2019 Tax Return.


Eventually WTT did take a Judicial Review in 2025 where they were criticised for making claims but bringing no evidence. They had their backside kicked. Apparently there was an extra fee of £1,200 to WTT to be part of the Judicial Review...plus the legal fees!
It makes for interesting reading: White & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] EWHC 1600 (Admin) (27 June 2025)
My friend tells me WTT are still selling victims more JR's !

My friend is considering action against WTT. There may be many others in the same boat. I struggle to see how the promotion and selling by WTT differs from any other Promoter? Indeed, it is arguably worse as the law was clear AND people were already in a desperate place. Did WTT check the ability of clients to pay HMRC in the event of defeat, before taking money from them with a promise of 65% of success that WTT just made up and which clearly was complete rubbish.

My original point of this thread was to find out if there are others in the same position of being excluded by McCann who still frequent here. It is very interesting that the lobbying of the APPG has led to the outcome of the McCann Review which gives better terms only to those who still haven't agreed settlement. Did LCAG & WTT tell the APPG that they had promoted and sold non-disclosure, or did they mislead the APPG to think that those who hadn't managed to settle were the only ones who needed help with affordability? Maybe Eek had a point, maybe we do need separate lobbying of the APPG to point out that the outcome is completely perverse in that those who complied have been treated the worst.

Given that you were not here in 2010 onwards to provided advice to people - it’s a bit rich to criticize people who were here and recommending the limited options that they knew about to people who turned here for advice.

as such I’m treating you and your criticism with the complete and utter total contempt it deserves.

Heck just looking at your posts all I see is a newbie attacking long standing posters and I really can’t be arsed anymore.

so unless and until you are removed I will be taking a break from here - because I can’t be arsed to deal with someone whose motive is both dubious and utterly pointless because whatever you want isn’t achievable - HMRC want the money they believe is owed and nothing is going to solve that issue

You did receive warnings years ago....and you shot/shut them all down at the time.

You didn't tell people then "HMRC want the money they believe is owed and nothing is going to solve that issue"

It does seem once again that your post here is just another attempt to shut me down or shoot me down, and get me removed so that you can cover it all up.

I think it is important that people are made aware so that either they don't fall into the same trap, or so that they extricate themselves if they are already in the trap, because the sellers are still selling apparently.

Don't you think that more important than trying to prevent me from exposing what's been going on?

[eek]

You did receive warnings years ago....and you shot/shut them all down at the time.

You didn't tell people then "HMRC want the money they believe is owed and nothing is going to solve that issue"

It does seem once again that your post here is just another attempt to shut me down or shoot me down, and get me removed so that you can cover it all up.

I think it is important that people are made aware so that either they don't fall into the same trap, or so thatthey extricate themselves is they are already in the trap, because the sellers are still selling apparently.

Don't you think that more important than trying to prevent me from exposing what's been going on?

Firstly I want to know who you are as your story doesn’t add up, and your motive is both dubious, years too late and every part of me says that you are GB intending to create trouble

Beyond that it’s a simple mental health issue - I don’t want to deal with you so if you stay here I’m not going to visit the site - it’s up to the mods to decide how they wish to handle you but I have enough evidence that I believe you never were a victim of a tax avoidances scheme but you did facilitate them.

[woody1]

I wonder if Armadillo advised their loan scheme clients not to follow WTT & LCAG, and instead settle to avoid the loan charge*.

If so, I can imagine McCann would be a very bitter pill to swallow, both for them and their clients.

*That wouldn't have been bad advice because not declaring the loans, and putting something in the white space instead, could have potentially landed people in even more bother.

[loanchargehurt]

Firstly I want to know who you are as your story doesn’t add up, and your motive is both dubious, years too late and every part of me says that you are GB intending to create trouble

Beyond that it’s a simple mental health issue - I don’t want to deal with you so if you stay here I’m not going to visit the site - it’s up to the mods to decide how they wish to handle you but I have enough evidence that I believe you never were a victim of a tax avoidances scheme but you did facilitate them.

That seems very much like blackmail. Surely you simply don’t have to read my posts and stop trying to have me kicked off, rather than stop visiting the site altogether?

I’m genuinely sorry that your single-minded focus on trying to have me removed, instead of now sharing the warnings that have been posted, are damaging your own mental health. I happen to think it’s important that people are made aware. I absolutely was in a tax avoidance scheme but I don’t like to refer to myself as a victim as I was well aware it was tax avoidance.

[loanchargehurt]

I wonder if Armadillo advised their loan scheme clients not to follow WTT & LCAG, and instead settle to avoid the loan charge*.

If so, I can imagine McCann would be a very bitter pill to swallow, both for them and their clients.

*That wouldn't have been bad advice because not declaring the loans, and putting something in the white space instead, could have potentially landed people in even more bother.

I would hope they did, it was imperative that all tax advisers encourage their clients to comply with the law and settle if possible, and nobody can say they were not aware that the Loan Charge was in statute and legally due if you had a loan. Trying to argue it was not a loan when you’d signed a loan agreement is going beyond ‘avoidance’ & would give rise to penalties as a minimum. Did McCann know that some encouraged, indeed promoted and sold that non-compliance (tax avoidance)? I would think they'd be in trouble with their professional institute and maybe not covered by their PI Insurance if they did.

[woody1]

Yep, sounds like aggressive tax avoidance to me.

Perhaps it's time to try your grievances out somewhere else? Mumsnet perhaps? I'm sure they'd love you.

---

AI Overview

The "white space" (the "Any other information" box on page TR 7 of the SA100 Self Assessment tax return) was recommended by the Loan Charge Action Group (LCAG) and advisors for taxpayers affected by the Loan Charge to make formal disclosures regarding disguised remuneration/loan arrangements for the 2018/19 tax year (filed in 2019). [1, 2]

Purpose of the LCAG White Space Guidance

• Disclosure vs. Non-Disclosure: Taxpayers dealing with post-9 December 2010 loans who chose to disclose rather than remain silent were advised to input specific wording in the return's white space to mitigate accusations of concealment or carelessness, and to prompt proper review by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) inspectors. [1, 2, 3]

• Averting Penalties: Proper white space narrative was intended to establish full transparency regarding loan values and positions, acting as a safeguard while individuals contested or arranged settlements regarding the controversial Loan Charge legislation. [1, 2]