Excluded from the McCann settlement

[eek]

It is really interesting that you keep trying to consign into the past those who are excluded from the concessions offered by the McCann Review. These people are still here and still paying. Don't they deserve some help? You simply dismiss it as "it's the past". These people have been treated far worse by HMRC than anyone who has benefitted from Morse Review & the McCann Review, so why don't you care about what has happened, is happening, to them?

But you aren't attacking HMRC you have just posted another rant about WTT.

As I said all you are doing is causing mischief and not helping anyone...

[woody1]

You have 2 choices:
1) Let it go, move on with your life.
2) Try and drum up support to fight for a better deal. I'm not sure you'll find much appetite for this, and IMO the chances of getting a better deal are close to zero.

-----------

Yes there is unfairness with McCann. Arguably it's a sop to appease MPs, without giving away that much.
I guess the basis of it is: those who settled could afford to do so (even if it meant paying by instalments); those who haven't settled are the ones who are struggling.
Yes we know that's a fudge but it is what it is.

-----------

There's also a much broader aspect of fairness here. In the eyes of many, you are tax dodgers. Why should you get away with paying less than the vast majority of the working population? Many folks wouldn't support users of tax avoidance schemes being granted any concessions, no matter how much financial hardship they were in.

[loanchargehurt]

You have 2 choices:
1) Let it go, move on with your life.
2) Try and drum up support to fight for a better deal. I'm not sure you'll find much appetite for this, and IMO the chances of getting a better deal are close to zero.

-----------

Yes there is unfairness with McCann. Arguably it's a sop to appease MPs, without giving away that much.
I guess the basis of it is: those who settled could afford to do so (even if it meant paying by instalments); those who haven't settled are the ones who are struggling.
Yes we know that's a fudge but it is what it is.

-----------

There's also a much broader aspect of fairness here. In the eyes of many, you are tax dodgers. Why should you get away with paying less than the vast majority of the working population? Many folks wouldn't support users of tax avoidance schemes getting any concessions.

As I said earlier, how easy would it be for the lobby group LCAG (and APPG) to point out that Mr McCann himself encouraged settlement, under threat of the more penal Loan Charge, then he effectively removed the Loan Charge and gave better terms to those who ignored his advice and avoided that tax (tax avoidance) and this seems far removed from anyone's idea of "fair".

Why haven't the lobby group done that on behalf of loan charge victims (I suspect it's because, as I have pointed out, they would risk exposing themselves as the very ones who sold non-disclosure/non-compliance). Their actions have left behind Loan Charge victims who complied. MPs would see this if it was pointed out to them, but the secretariat (LCAG) isn't pointing it out.

https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post3031752

[loanchargehurt]

But you aren't attacking HMRC you have just posted another rant about WTT.

As I said all you are doing is causing mischief and not helping anyone...

We know you just want to protect WTT & resign all their actions to past history never to be examined.

However, I am just pointing out why the interests of a large group of loan charge victims is not being represented by the lobbying that goes on when the APPG meet.

I am asking if there is anyone still on here who does not qualify for the McCann Review terms (which only applies to those who refused to comply with the legal requirement to disclose their loans (or agree settlement in advance) ).

Remember there were apparently 67,000 people affected, 11,000 allegedly removed by Morse, and 32,000 who hadn't settled by the time of the McCann Review. So a large number of people are not being represented by the lobby group. Nor by yourself it would appear.

[woody1]

...Mr McCann himself encouraged settlement, under threat of the more penal Loan Charge...

For the majority of people, having all the loans lumped together in one tax year would have been much worse than settling, so at the time this was sensible advice.

, then he effectively removed the Loan Charge and gave better terms to those who ignored his advice and avoided that tax (tax avoidance) and this seems far removed from anyone's idea of "fair".

He couldn't have known at the time, he gave that advice, that he would later be asked by HMT to do this:

Led by former CIOT president Ray McCann, the 2025 Loan Charge Review was commissioned by the Treasury to break the deadlock on unresolved disguised remuneration tax cases.

I have highlighted that word because it shows the terms of reference for the Review clearly excluded people (like you) who had paid the Loan Charge or settled.

[loanchargehurt]

For the majority of people, having all the loans lumped together in one tax year would have been much worse than settling, so at the time this was sensible advice.



He couldn't have known at the time, he gave that advice, that he would later be asked by HMT to do this:

Led by former CIOT president Ray McCann, the 2025 Loan Charge Review was commissioned by the Treasury to break the deadlock on unresolved disguised remuneration tax cases.

I have highlighted that word because it shows the terms of reference for the Review clearly excluded people (like you) who had paid the Loan Charge or settled.

I agree with that, which is exactly the point.

Firstly, that the Review only focused on those who had not settled or paid the Loan Charge (because the lobbying focused on people not being able to pay but never mentioned them being encouraged by LCAG not to pay).

Secondly, that McCann took the gig knowing he personally, as CIOT past-president had already encouraged people to settle on the earlier terms.

Thirdly, that McCann then proposed much improved terms for those who had not complied with his earlier advice....and the law.

How difficult would it be for the lobby group to point that out to the APPG?

[eek]

We know you just want to protect WTT & resign all their actions to past history never to be examined.

However, I am just pointing out why the interests of a large group of loan charge victims is not being represented by the lobbying that goes on when the APPG meet.

I am asking if there is anyone still on here who does not qualify for the McCann Review terms (which only applies to those who refused to comply with the legal requirement to disclose their loans (or agree settlement in advance) ).

Remember there were apparently 67,000 people affected, 11,000 allegedly removed by Morse, and 32,000 who hadn't settled by the time of the McCann Review. So a large number of people are not being represented by the lobby group. Nor by yourself it would appear.

I am still at a complete loss as to what you are trying to achieve apart from attacking everyone..

[WTFH]

I agree with that, which is exactly the point.

Firstly, that the Review only focused on those who had not settled or paid the Loan Charge (because the lobbying focused on people not being able to pay but never mentioned them being encouraged by LCAG not to pay).

Secondly, that McCann took the gig knowing he personally, as CIOT past-president had already encouraged people to settle on the earlier terms.

Thirdly, that McCann then proposed much improved terms for those who had not complied with his earlier advice....and the law.

How difficult would it be for the lobby group to point that out to the APPG?

I would suggest that rather than trying to fight anyone who has ever done anything that might help some people, why aren't you devoting your rage to the people who came up with these loan schemes int he first place. Go after them to get your money back, focus your energy on them.

If you had a loan and you agreed a method of paying HMRC the tax they demanded, then you have agreed that. You might have agreed it 10 years ago.
Do you go after a bank because a 10 year fixed mortgage in 2008 was 6% and it's now 4%? No, I suspect you would go after Martin Lewis, claiming he is a fraud and demanding he campaigns for you to get a refund for the rate being higher back then.

Let me try asking again: What scheme were you caught up in, and when did you agree to settle?

[woody1]

Firstly, that the Review only focused on those who had not settled or paid the Loan Charge (because the lobbying focused on people not being able to pay but never mentioned them being encouraged by LCAG not to pay).

Although the official line is that the Treasury commissioned the review, HMRC would have been all over this. No way they would have allowed closed cases to be included.

That's why sadly, I think you're on a hiding to nothing.

[loanchargehurt]

Although the official line is that the Treasury commissioned the review, HMRC would have been all over this. No way they would have allowed closed cases to be included.

That's why sadly, I think you're on a hiding to nothing.

For the third time: How difficult would it be for the lobby group to raise this with the APPG (and why is it they are not doing so)?