Question follow-through · 118967
Tax Avoidance
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reason the settlement opportunity arising from the McCann Review does not include those whose use of disguised remuneration schemes occurred before 9 December 2010 or after 5 April 2019.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Treasury
- Tabled
- 9 Mar 2026
- Target answer date
- 11 Mar 2026
- Answer
- 17 Mar 2026 · 8 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
9 Mar 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reason the settlement opportunity arising from the McCann Review does not include those whose use of disguised remuneration schemes occurred before 9 December 2010 or after 5 April 2019.
11 Mar 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
17 Mar 2026
Answer published
At Budget 2024, the Government announced a new independent review of the loan charge. The purpose of the review was to bring the matter to a close for people who have not settled and paid their loan charge liabilities. The settlement opportunity will only...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.