Asked by: Preet Kaur Gill (Labour (Co-op) - Birmingham Edgbaston)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effects for people who settled loan charge liabilities before implementation of the Ray McCann review recommendations compared to people offered the the new settlement opportunity for those with outstanding loan charge liabilities following the recommendations.
Answered by James Murray - Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General
The Government commissioned an independent review of the loan charge to help bring the matter to a close for those who have not settled and paid the Loan Charge.
Individuals and employers who have already settled their loan charge liabilities and paid in full are not impacted by the new Loan Charge Settlement Scheme.
Asked by: Neil Duncan-Jordan (Labour - Poole)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the value-for-money to the taxpayer of the Loan Charge.
Answered by James Murray - Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General
Tax avoidance deprives the Exchequer of funds needed to deliver vital public services and it is right that HMRC target their resources to stop this.
The Loan Charge was intended to encourage those who had used disguised remuneration loan schemes to settle their affairs before it came into effect. HMRC estimates that £2.3 billion of these liabilities had been paid, largely by customers who agreed a contract settlement before the Loan Charge arose.
There are are around 32,000 individuals and 5,000 employers with outstanding or unresolved Loan Charge liabilities in scope of the Loan Charge Settlement Scheme, with liabilities estimated to be around £3.6 billion in total(£1.7 billion and £1.9 billion respectively).
Asked by: Neil Duncan-Jordan (Labour - Poole)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many outstanding disguised remuneration cases he expects will be settled as a result of the new settlement offer following the McCann Review.
Answered by James Murray - Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General
Tax avoidance deprives the Exchequer of funds needed to deliver vital public services and it is right that HMRC target their resources to stop this.
The Loan Charge was intended to encourage those who had used disguised remuneration loan schemes to settle their affairs before it came into effect. HMRC estimates that £2.3 billion of these liabilities had been paid, largely by customers who agreed a contract settlement before the Loan Charge arose.
There are are around 32,000 individuals and 5,000 employers with outstanding or unresolved Loan Charge liabilities in scope of the Loan Charge Settlement Scheme, with liabilities estimated to be around £3.6 billion in total(£1.7 billion and £1.9 billion respectively).
Asked by: Neil Duncan-Jordan (Labour - Poole)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many cases of death and serious injury of people facing HMRC action for disguised remuneration cases has HMRC referred to the Independent Office of Police Conduct.
Answered by James Murray - Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General
As of 22 October 2026, HMRC has made 41 death or serious injury referrals to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) involving separate individuals who had used a disguised remuneration scheme.
The government and HMRC take the safeguarding of individuals extremely seriously. HMRC has a statutory obligation to refer incidents of death or serious injury of a customer where there is an indication that HMRC contact may have directly or indirectly contributed to the event.
Following each referral, HMRC has conducted internal investigations and has found no evidence of misconduct by any HMRC officer. HMRC is taking forward organisational learning to strengthen the support provided to individuals who need extra help.
Asked by: Mike Wood (Conservative - Kingswinford and South Staffordshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answers of 10 September 2026 to Question 26582 on Government Departments: Off-payroll Working, and to Question 26567 on Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: Taxation, whether there is a statutory prohibition on his Department's Ministers disclosing to Parliament which central government departments and arm's length bodies are under investigation by HMRC in relation to potential IR35 tax avoidance.
Answered by James Murray - Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General
HMRC has a statutory duty of confidentiality under section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. This prevents HMRC from disclosing information about identifiable taxpayers, including whether a particular body is subject to an investigation, unless there is lawful authority to do so
HMRC cannot provide Ministers with information identifying which central government departments or arm’s-length bodies are, or are not, under investigation. Nor can HMRC provide aggregate figures relating to groups of individuals or organisations if providing those figures could, when combined with information already in the public domain, enable the bodies concerned to be identified or allow inferences to be drawn about other bodies.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the letter from the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards and the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP on 5 September 2025, whether the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has paid a fine or penalty to HMRC.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
As the Secretary of State has set out publicly, the Secretary of State has settled this matter with HMRC, who consider this matter closed. No fine or penalty were due. HMRC concluded there was no tax avoidance.
Asked by: Charlie Maynard (Liberal Democrat - Witney)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of tax non-compliance within the hair and barbering sector, including the use of self-employment and rent-a-chair arrangements.
Answered by James Murray - Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General
The ‘rent-a-chair’ model is a legitimate business model used in the hair and beauty sector. Where it is applied correctly, individuals will be self-employed for tax purposes. Whether an individual is employed or self-employed is not a matter of choice but is determined by the actual terms and conditions under which they work. HMRC has published GOV.UK guidance and YouTube videos on tax obligations specific to this sector to enhance understanding and enable businesses to comply with their tax obligations. The latest guidance was published in May 2025; this included the Check Employment Status for Tax tool (CEST).
Asked by: Michelle Scrogham (Labour - Barrow and Furness)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many Loan Charge cases remain open with HMRC for the latest date for which figures are available.
Answered by James Murray - Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General
As of March 2025, HM Revenue and Customs estimates that approximately 32,000 individuals and 5,000 employers have liabilities that have not been paid in full and are therefore considered to be in scope of the review. Some taxpayers will have more than one liability.
The Government commissioned an independent review of the loan charge to bring the matter to a close for those who have not settled and paid their loan charge liabilities. The Government accepted all but one of the independent review’s recommendations and in some cases is going further. Around a third of people will have their liabilities written off entirely. Most will see reductions in their liabilities of at least 50%.
The legislation for the Loan Charge Settlement Scheme came into force on the 05 August 2026, HMRC is now writing to customers inviting them to settle under the new settlement scheme.
Asked by: David Simmonds (Conservative - Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the answer of 21 April 2026, to Question 126749, on Council Tax: Surcharges, what the evidential basis is for residential dwellings being liable for both taxes, including the proposed higher level for foreign owners under the new surcharge.
Answered by James Murray - Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General
The Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) applies to companies that own UK residential property worth more than £500,000. ATED is intended to tackle tax avoidance, ensuring those who 'envelope' residential properties, by owning or purchasing them through corporate structures without a commercial purpose, pay a fair share of tax.
The High Value Council Tax Surcharge (HVCTS) will apply to owners of residential properties in England worth £2 million or above. Some companies who are currently liable to pay ATED will be in scope of the HVCTS. The government sought views through consultation on a non-resident surcharge for HVCTS, a response will be published in due course.
Asked by: Mims Davies (Conservative - East Grinstead and Uckfield)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of the value for money to the taxpayer of the retrospective Loan Charge.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with HM Treasury)
I refer the Hon. Member to the answers I gave on 9 February 2026 to UINs 109843.