Excluded from the McCann settlement

[loanchargehurt]

Is anyone else on here excluded from the McCann settlement terms because they did the right thing and followed the law:
1. either by disclosing loans from pre-2011 removed by Morse: or
2. agreeing post-DR settlement terms with HMRC per the Loan Charge deadline of 30 September 2020?

Is anyone (group) raising any actions?

How can a former CIOT President have recommended better terms for those who didn’t settle by the deadline when he himself was recommending settlement previous to the deadline! 😠

[WorldOfScams]

Hi yes, absolutely screwed over by HMRC.

i engaged with them fully from the very first letter back in 2017.
i ended up on the 2020 most punitive terms (loan charge) due to a HMRC agents miscommunication

despite this i paid in full

so after working openly with them, provided all information (repeatedly), for 7-8 years, i would of been much better off doing nothing.

yes, rediculous.

I’m not looking to resolve this, it’s HMRC. They make the rules..

The only group i know of who have raised this issue (not that im looking) is the loan charge action group

[eek]

Is anyone else on here excluded from the McCann settlement terms because they did the right thing and followed the law:
1. either by disclosing loans from pre-2011 removed by Morse: or
2. agreeing post-DR settlement terms with HMRC per the Loan Charge deadline of 30 September 2020?

Is anyone (group) raising any actions?

How can a former CIOT President have recommended better terms for those who didn’t settle by the deadline when he himself was recommending settlement previous to the deadline! 😠

Well the restrictions are listed in https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-charge-review

And the reason why I suspect you can’t access it leaps out at me

• promoters of tax avoidance schemes will not be able to access the new settlement opportunity

and when I look at the other restrictions they are all about restricting the amount reduced rather than stopping people accessing it.

so I do wonder if I know exactly who you are and that you are not the innocent contractor you are claiming to be but rather a promoter of schemes looking to create trouble and potentially earn a few more quid..

[loanchargehurt]

Hi yes, absolutely screwed over by HMRC.

i engaged with them fully from the very first letter back in 2017.
i ended up on the 2020 most punitive terms (loan charge) due to a HMRC agents miscommunication

despite this i paid in full

so after working openly with them, provided all information (repeatedly), for 7-8 years, i would of been much better off doing nothing.

yes, rediculous.

I’m not looking to resolve this, it’s HMRC. They make the rules..

The only group i know of who have raised this issue (not that im looking) is the loan charge action group

There seems to be a lack of interest in those who complied & so ended up in a worse position than those who did not comply.

Even LCAG seem more interested in arguing about the £70k cap and arguing for a 'independent' review (which they must know by now will not happen.

It would be good if they just focused on getting access to the same terms for those excluded by both McCann and Morse. I suspect they can't because that would mean exposing those who have not complied with full disclosure.

It seems some people are completely unaware of this obvious unfairness (or just disinterested) given Eek's comments which followed yours.

[loanchargehurt]

Well the restrictions are listed in https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-charge-review

And the reason why I suspect you can’t access it leaps out at me

• promoters of tax avoidance schemes will not be able to access the new settlement opportunity

and when I look at the other restrictions they are all about restricting the amount reduced rather than stopping people accessing it.

so I do wonder if I know exactly who you are and that you are not the innocent contractor you are claiming to be but rather a promoter of schemes looking to create trouble and potentially earn a few more quid..

How strange.

The reason people like me can't access the McCann Review settlement terms is because the Terms of Reference means that only those who had post-DR loans which they had not agreed to settle, were within the terms of the Review.

So there are three or four obvious groups who have missed out:
those with post-DR loans who agreed settlement;
those who declared their loans and have finished paying the loan charge;
those with pre-DR loans; and
those with post-2019 loans.
Yet all this seems to have passed you by & instead you focus on an obscure clause.

It would seem your focus may motivated by the fact that I asked whether WTT had taken a cut from those who paid Elysium via WTT.
https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post3031317

I went on to point out a number of places where WTT seem to have taken a cut from victims, including perhaps dealing with the proceeds of crime and negotiating with those who were under criminal investigation. You leapt to WTT defense (as you have done before), then I got reprimanded and my comments (not yours) were taken down (conveniently). You now seem to have made a leap, possibly partly caused by your inability to understand where people are excluded from the McCann Review, into thinking I'm somehow "trying to earn a few more quid". You seem to be trying to take this thread in a new direction (which is what I was accused of despite the original question), so it will be interesting to see if Cojak reprimands you or if she again takes down my comments.

[eek]

How strange.

The reason people like me can't access the McCann Review settlement terms is because the Terms of Reference means that only those who had post-DR loans which they had not agreed to settle, were within the terms of the Review.

So there are three or four obvious groups who have missed out:
those with post-DR loans who agreed settlement;
those who declared their loans and have finished paying the loan charge;
those with pre-DR loans; and
those with post-2019 loans.
Yet all this seems to have passed you by & instead you focus on an obscure clause.

It would seem your focus may motivated by the fact that I asked whether WTT had taken a cut from those who paid Elysium via WTT.
https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post3031317

I went on to point out a number of places where WTT seem to have taken a cut from victims, including perhaps dealing with the proceeds of crime and negotiating with those who were under criminal investigation. You leapt to WTT defense (as you have done before), then I got reprimanded and my comments (not yours) were taken down (conveniently). You now seem to have made a leap, possibly partly caused by your inability to understand where people are excluded from the McCann Review, into thinking I'm somehow "trying to earn a few more quid". You seem to be trying to take this thread in a new direction (which is what I was accused of despite the original question), so it will be interesting to see if Cojak reprimands you or if she again takes down my comments.

Would I be correct in saying that your name is in an HMRC press release?

And I'm confused as to what you have against WTT because they haven't been here for years, heck I don't think we've recommended them for years our advice has been find a specialist but not one who previously sold schemes (which was why WTT were on the original suggestion list)..

Finally - I find it very strange that you only seem to post in working hours - almost like it's a job for you to earn money and there isn't a large tax bill involved...

[loanchargehurt]

Would I be correct in saying that your name is in an HMRC press release?

And I'm confused as to what you have against WTT because they haven't been here for years, heck I don't think we've recommended them for years our advice has been find a specialist but not one who previously sold schemes...

Finally - I find it very strange that you only seem to post in working hours - almost like it's a job for you to earn money and there isn't a large tax bill involved...

You are acting genuinely weird.

You have completely ignored the issues in this thread and headed off in a bizzare direction and attack. Is Cojak monitoring your posts?

There were a number of references to WTT in the West 28 thread such as (https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post3028934) and the one that caught my interest was that WTT had clients paying via them. Why? I have seen this before with other friends who paid for things via WTT and it raises alarm bells. Webber had a post previously saying that he did not operate a client account, so what is their game? This seems like a reasonable question but you don't want it to be raised.

WTT still exist and they are still selling it seems. They appear on other threads charging £6,000 (incl vat) to Loan Charge victims https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post3008385

Yet you appear to want to treat it all as if it all happened many years ago. Could that be because of the number of people you have sold into WTT in the past and the fairly recent past (https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post3005724), maybe you are the one making money from this? You certainly seem determined to deflect. According to you my not spotting and responding to your BS post this weekend is a that sign I'm here to make money! Downright weird.

Again, you seem very determined to take this thread away from it's original point, why is that?

[Diagnose b4 u prescribe]

I'm beginning to feel uncomforatble about some of the content in this thread. In my opinion we should stop fighting each other but instead focus on supporting those fighting one or more of these 2 (or are there 3?) EXTERNAL battles.

1. Battle One: HMRC and the Government's original Loan Charge Legislation. It's clear the original approach to threaten and then tax all income in one year was badly administered and heavy handed in the extreme. I 100% agree it is manifestly unfair that those people who fought back (like me) or ignored HMRC altogether, should now be in a more favourable position than those who agreed pre-McCann settlements. I believe the new McCann terms should apply to all Loans regardless of the scheme dates or whether the contractor has previously settled under the original punitive terms. loanchargehurt I feel your best recourse is via your MP, wider lobbying or legal challlenge. I also believe this thread should be closed because it is also the theme of an existing and active thread: Independent Loan Charge Review
2. Battle Two: Attempts to redefine and pursue Loan Payments as valid debts. Those of us who stupidly engaged in these loan schemes and then (to add insult to injury), suffered an onslaught from Felicitas / W28 et al, thought these dodgy loan recalls had finally gone away. Then came the April 2026 'thud on the doormat' which heralded a storm of activity on the Contractor UK forum. Again, this is covered by an existing and very active thread West 28th Street Limited. I hope that with the combined input of fellow forum members and the recent intervention by Dan Neidle, they'll now retreat back to their rat's nest.
3. Battle Three? Third party big groups. I.e. those who seem to have generated considerable funds from allegedly taking the fight to the promoters and their subsequent debt agencies. This is an area where I only have anecdotal evidence of what has been charged and what (if any) progress has been made. I've made my position clear in other posts, I prefer to fight my own battles and thus far seem to be in the same position as those who joined 'big groups' such as WTT or Elysium. I have no idea if they're in any way linked to the likes of West 28th Street, Felicitas or any of their earlier incarnations, but they have clearly benefited financially. That's not my battle to fight so I'll stay on the sidelines and only contribute if I feel I can help someone.

One of my favourite cliches is to "pick your battles". Now as I sometimes say to my Grandchildren, "can we all now play nicely please?"

[woody1]

Just a bit of history...

When WTT first started promoting their services on this website it was as "BIG GROUP" to take the loans fight to HMRC. This was back in 2015 before the Loan Charge came along and the repayment extortionists started appearing. Can't remember what they ended up charging but it was something like 20 quid a month.
https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...big-group.html

Later they offered services to fight the extortionists (Felicitas, W28 et al). They also charged a lot more (few grand I think) to be part of their litigation action.

------

I don't think any of this achieved that much but those with them, who continued to fight HMRC and didn't settle, are at least now able to benefit from the McCann settlement. So it wasn't all for nothing, although I don't think WTT can take much credit for McCann which was mainly down to the work of The Loan Charge APPG.

[eek]

I'm beginning to feel uncomforatble about some of the content in this thread. In my opinion we should stop fighting each other but instead focus on supporting those fighting one or more of these 2 (or are there 3?) EXTERNAL battles.

1. Battle One: HMRC and the Government's original Loan Charge Legislation. It's clear the original approach to threaten and then tax all income in one year was badly administered and heavy handed in the extreme. I 100% agree it is manifestly unfair that those people who fought back (like me) or ignored HMRC altogether, should now be in a more favourable position than those who agreed pre-McCann settlements. I believe the new McCann terms should apply to all Loans regardless of the scheme dates or whether the contractor has previously settled under the original punitive terms. loanchargehurt I feel your best recourse is via your MP, wider lobbying or legal challlenge. I also believe this thread should be closed because it is also the theme of an existing and active thread: Independent Loan Charge Review
2. Battle Two: Attempts to redefine and pursue Loan Payments as valid debts. Those of us who stupidly engaged in these loan schemes and then (to add insult to injury), suffered an onslaught from Felicitas / W28 et al, thought these dodgy loan recalls had finally gone away. Then came the April 2026 'thud on the doormat' which heralded a storm of activity on the Contractor UK forum. Again, this is covered by an existing and very active thread West 28th Street Limited. I hope that with the combined input of fellow forum members and the recent intervention by Dan Neidle, they'll now retreat back to their rat's nest.
3. Battle Three? Third party big groups. I.e. those who seem to have generated considerable funds from allegedly taking the fight to the promoters and their subsequent debt agencies. This is an area where I only have anecdotal evidence of what has been charged and what (if any) progress has been made. I've made my position clear in other posts, I prefer to fight my own battles and thus far seem to be in the same position as those who joined 'big groups' such as WTT or Elysium. I have no idea if they're in any way linked to the likes of West 28th Street, Felicitas or any of their earlier incarnations, but they have clearly benefited financially. That's not my battle to fight so I'll stay on the sidelines and only contribute if I feel I can help someone.

One of my favourite cliches is to "pick your battles". Now as I sometimes say to my Grandchildren, "can we all now play nicely please?"

Shall we just say getting people fightlng each other is loanchargehurt 's purpose in life and leave it there.

I believe I know exactly who he is and he isn't here for the good of others - as every post his made should have made very clear by now...