🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

James Tewes Two genuine & serious questions for you: 1. What part do you think doesn’t hold up legally? 2. What do you think they’d pursue from those who promoted schemes? I ask as I genuinely think people are being missold the answer to those two questions right now, so I do want to know.

We have long argued that HM Revenue & Customs cannot simultaneously hold two different positions for different taxes when seeking IHT on payments treated as earnings. Here the FTT agree with us, holding that there was "no basis for this position": caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2025/…

LCAG suggestions are completely devoid of reality. They want to benefit from a tax avoidance scheme if it works, but not be the ones to lose out if it doesn't work. Again this is the same LCAG who argue that without retrospection no tax is due.

The 11 page LCAG/APPG letter argues that they should not only get paid different rates, but also be charged less tax, AND simultaneously argues they are under the control, supervision & direction of agencies & should have been taxed even more under s44! STOP listening to WTT🤦‍♂️

LoanChargeHell Armadillo - Tax Support HM Revenue & Customs There are some people out there who actually believe that WTT are eventually, one day perhaps this century, going to start a new case at the FTT despite rulings already given at the Supreme Court & Court of Appeal. Yet when you point this out this absurdity they argue with you🤷‍♂️

HMRC seek tax on the untaxed amounts received by individuals in their hand. So it's poor form that LCAG continue to try to blame everyone else & ask that others be prosecuted & pay tax they didn't withhold, from fees already taxed. Under s44 individuals would've been taxed more!

Loan Charge Action Group [LCAG] HM Revenue & Customs James Murray Rachel Reeves Ray McCann LCAG seem to want to benefit from a tax avoidance scheme if it works, but not be the ones to lose out if it doesn't work. This is the same LCAG who argue that without retrospection no tax is due. LCAG should be highlighting the draconian "punishment strategy" settlement terms.

Gordon Berry Loan Charge Action Group [LCAG] HM Revenue & Customs James Murray Rachel Reeves Ray McCann Different words but to the same tune. Contradictory nonsense and whoever they’re listening to is misleading them. Which is somewhat ironic!

James Tewes Here is a true irony. People are being sold the sort of claims you are repeating. Yet these claims are being: 1. sold contrary to the clear legal position; 2. sold to people in dire financial straits; 3. promoted by the lobby group LCAG to the very people it's meant to represent!

7/ And… what happened next? To nobody’s great surprise, the public sector workforce continued to balloon. It is now up 39,000 from pre-Covid levels. The civil service is 37% bigger than it was pre-Covid, increasing from 20,000 to 27,400. Source: gov.scot/publications/p…

The APPG letter, clearly written by LCAG, seeks to blame: - Promoters - Agencies - Umbrellas - accountants - HMRC - Politicians - IR35 rules But still does not take any responsibility for knowingly joining schemes to side step IR35 tax.

Who is writing these Loan Charge & Taxpayer Fairness APPG letters & totally misleading both Loan Charge Action Group [LCAG] & the APPG?

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised concerns over new tax avoidance criminal offence proposals. Read more here: tax.org.uk/does-hmrc-s-ne…

If half the civil servants are like managers or team leaders then logically they must be managers or leaders to the other half 🤷‍♂️ So each manager or leader is managing or leading one person. So title for the sake of it & presumably salary (and pension) in line with that title.

If only they’d do 4 days work each week.