Ministry of Fairness

@PyRoss9 @SebastianMaril (Or Ucraine’s, or Romania’s , for that matter)

@SebastianMaril What’s Italy’s interest in this?

🔴Ecuador, Chile, Uruguay, Italia, Ucrania y Rumania se han presentado para apoyar a la Rep. Argentina en su defensa para evitar que la Corte de Apelaciones ratifique el fallo de la Juez Loretta Preska que obliga al país entregar las acciones de YPF a los beneficiarios del fallo. 🔴 Ecuador, Chile, Uruguay, Italy, Ukraine, and Romania have filed in support of the Republic of Argentina’s defense, seeking to prevent the Court of Appeals from upholding Judge Loretta Preska’s ruling that compels the country to turn over its YPF shares to the judgment creditors.

@JudithFreedman @SarahEGabbai @Ray_McCann55 What do you think of the scope of the review, @JudithFreedman @SarahEGabbai ?

Full of admiration for @Ray_McCann55 who has agreed to take on loan charge review. Not an easy job but if anyone can sort it out he can. I hope all involved will give him full support for the best chance of a reasonable resolution.

@jamesmurray_ldn When in opposition, @jamesmurray_ldn demanded “a new, truly independent review” of the #LoanCharge. Now in government, he has abandoned his own words, unveiling a SHAM review that focuses solely on how best to make the victims pay. #BrokenPromises

Far too many people who are victims of mis-selling are now facing financial ruin because of the loan charge. Their ordeal is the clearest possible proof the Government needs to think again. Today I pressed Ministers to agree to Labour's call for a new, truly independent review.

The Loan Charge review announced by @jamesmurray_ldn is a complete sham. It’s like launching a review of the Post Office scandal but only allowing it to focus on how postmasters could repay their so-called “debts” in instalments. @gregwrightYP @LCAG_2019 @loanchargeAPPG

5) the #LoanCharge is a badly designed policy, which has failed at every level. The demands are unaffordable and 10 people have killed themselves because of it. Eliminating the LC not only costs way less than the quoted £3.2bn, but is the only decent thing to do.

4) How much of the LC was actually collected? not much, as a) only a few people settled with HMRC, typically the ones owing little money, and b) none of the others have paid, simply because they cannot afford HMRC's huge demands. See HMRC's own simulation:

3) internal document, also revealed by FOI, clarified that the expected Yield of the LC was £1.7bn - basically around half of the propaganda number. And this was before the concessions requested by the (botched) Morse review, which brought it down to around £800m

@DanNeidle there is a (big) mistake in your article taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/10/202… about the #LoanCharge, which hasn't (and won't) collect £3.2bn as you reported. Here's why: 🧵

2) This is the Director of counter-avoidance writing that she kept using the £3.2bn figure because she had "learned it".

1) the LC was always "part of a package raising £3.2bn". HMRC were always careful not to disclose the actual contribution of the LC.

Time for @UKLabour to be on people’s side. Your inaction on the #LoanCharge pushes workers towards financial ruin, while protecting scheme owners and Tory donors. @ApsanaBegumMP @Keir_Starmer @AnnelieseDodds

This morning, the @CommonsPAC, heard from Jim Harra, the head of HMRC. In response to a question on HMRC's behaviour when pursuing tax cases before the courts, and specifically with IR35 cases, he said "we do always try to resolve disputes by agreement". parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/14…

More proof HMT&HMRC had early access to “independent 🤡” #LoanCharge report, weeks before “official” publication 1) shows they had the draft on 18 Nov 2020. 2) confirms privileged access to Sir Morse & review team who were expected to update them on changes to recommendations

@loanchargeAPPG HMRC's MAXIMUM tax, not 'right' tax objective perfectly illustrated. Acting like loan sharks as attempt to squeeze more from #LoanCharge familes. Here is 'voluntary' settlement contract demanding IHT.

Coincidences. 1. Amyas Morse was chosen to run the #LoanCharge independent review 2. Amyas Morse appeared to have a track record of talking about the findings of his reviews before their conclusion 3. HMRC+HMT got access to LC report recommendations 1 month before its publication

The email which revealed that HMT & HMRC had privileged access to recommendations of "independent" #LoanCharge review was initially blocked under s36 of the FOIA. @ICOnews should really look into whether HMT use these exceptions just to block the release of damaging information.

1. A thread 🧵 As a #LoanCharge victim I am confused about the claims being made in respect of promoters of schemes caught by Loan Charge. @keithmgordon I believe you did a thread on this so help me out if you can. OK here we go, please read to the end & retweet for max exposure.

More evidence HMRC and HMT had very early access to Amyas Morse's recommendations from his #LoanCharge review. This email dates 28 November 2019, almost two weeks before the official meeting during which HMRC and HMT had early sight of the report (9 December 2019)

During the "independent" #LoanCharge review, and well before its publication, HMT were very casually asking around what the reviewer's latest position was on specific subjects. Does this suggest the reviewer was habitually open about his conclusions?