← Back to imported archive search
Tax Avoidance - Promoter statistics
Source: WhatDoTheyKnow
Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
Status: Response to this request is
long overdue
. By law, under all circumstances,
HM Revenue and Customs
should have responded by now (
details
). The person who made the request can
complain
by
requesting an internal review
.
Imported path: /opt/loancharge/imports/wdtk/requests/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic
Open original request on WhatDoTheyKnow
Imported text
SOURCE: WhatDoTheyKnow
SOURCE_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic
TITLE: Tax Avoidance - Promoter statistics
AUTHORITY: HM Revenue and Customs
AUTHORITY_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hmrc
STATUS: Response to this request is
long overdue
. By law, under all circumstances,
HM Revenue and Customs
should have responded by now (
details
). The person who made the request can
complain
by
requesting an internal review
.
REQUEST_SLUG: tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic
CAPTURED_AT: 2026-05-19T07:10:21+00:00
PROVENANCE: {"first_seen_at": "2026-05-18T12:54:22", "first_seen_page": "5", "first_query_term": "\"Loan Charge\"", "first_date_after": "2021/01/01", "first_date_before": "2022/01/01", "matched_query_terms": "\"Loan Charge\"", "matched_date_ranges": "2021/01/01 to 2022/01/01", "first_search_url_template": "https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/%22Loan%20Charge%22/requests?commit=Filter&query=%22Loan+Charge%22&request_date_after=2021%2F01%2F01&request_date_before=2022%2F01%2F01&request_variety%5B%5D=sent&request_variety%5B%5D=response&request_variety%5B%5D=comment&sortby=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&page="}
ATTACHMENTS:
- 20210514_FOI2021_07759.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic/response/1793617/attach/3/20210514%20FOI2021%2007759.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 147225 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic/response/1793617/attach/html/3/20210514%20FOI2021%2007759.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
- IR2021_11236_Pauline_Dunn.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic/response/1816074/attach/3/IR2021%2011236%20Pauline%20Dunn.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 206279 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic/response/1816074/attach/html/3/IR2021%2011236%20Pauline%20Dunn.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
================================================================================
MESSAGE 1 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
21 April 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
A recent response by HMT to a FOI request reference FOI2021/10737 made the following statement
"HMRC has introduced a penalty regime for anyone who designs, sells, or otherwise
enables the use of a tax avoidance arrangement. Vigorous activity by HMRC has led to a significant proportion of promoters having left the avoidance market since 2014. "
I would like to understand and validate the mathematics of this statement as it implies that HMRC know how many and who the promoters are.
1) How many tax avoidance scheme promoters were there in 2014?
2) How many tax avoidance scheme promoters are currently in the avoidance market?
3) The term "significant" is used. What value does significant equate to?
4) How many promoters have received penalties
Yours faithfully,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 2 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
22 April 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ref: FOI2021/07759
Dear Ms Dunn,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement
Thank you for your communication of 21st April which has been passed to
HMRC's Freedom of Information Team.
We have allocated the above reference which you should quote if you need
to contact us.
The Team will arrange for a reply to be sent to you which will either
comply with HMRC's obligations under Freedom of Information Act or, if we
think it's an enquiry that we don't need to address under the terms of the
Act, let you know why. If it is the latter we will, if possible, pass it
on to a more appropriate part of the Departmen t for answer.
As you will appreciate, the coronavirus pandemic has provided
unprecedented challenges for Government Departments including HMRC. Over
the coming weeks our priorities are to provide critical existing and new
Public Services for Government to support customers during this difficult
time. As a result, resources may be diverted away from usual compliance or
information rights work. HMRC aims to respond to all FOIA Requests within
20 working days. If for whatever reason this timescale cannot be complied
with HMRC will, where possible, write to you explaining the reason for the
delay and providing an estimated time for response.
Yours sincerely
HMRC Freedom of Information Act Team
================================================================================
MESSAGE 3 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
19 May 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Attachment
20210514 FOI2021 07759.pdf
143K
View
Download
Dear Ms Dunn,
We are writing in response to your request for information, received on 21
April 2021.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Freedom of Information Team
================================================================================
MESSAGE 4 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
19 May 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Central Team,
Thank you for the response to my FOI request ref: FOI2021 07759
The question was trying to elicit from HMRC how many promoters were active in 2014 and how many were active in 2021 given that HMRC are making bold statements
"Vigorous activity by HMRC has led to a significant proportion of promoters having left the avoidance market since 2014. " is rather misleading as it appears that the vigorous activity isn't putting off new entrants into this market.
The implication of your response is that there are roughly as many promoters now as there were in 2014. There may even be more. In many cases the same promoters change the name or brand that they are operating under, but the same people are operating it.
If you know that 25 have left the field then it follows that you know who they were and must have a precise number from 2014.
Question 1
There must be a precise answer or at least one that HMRC work to if the are to make statements of their success. Please provide the number that HMRC used as the basis for the number of promoters in 2014.
Question 2
I fail to see how revealing the number of promoters affects HMRC's ability to enforce the law. I actually think that it would be much more in the public interest for HMRC to reveal the names of these promoters in order to protect taxpayers.
I have not asked for the names but I believe that HMRC should provide the number of promoters today.
Please provide the number.
Question 3
I agree that 25 promoters leaving the field is a significant portion of 20-30. Of course if there are now more promoters in 2021 the bold claim made in the HMRC statement looks at best, disingenuous.
Question 4
Doing some of the maths. If 25 have left the market and there are between 20 and 30 current promoters. The number that have been penalised is less than 5. This means that only 10% of the promoters have been penalised.
The claim that DOTAS is a deterrent is quite laughable as most promoters were using it as an endorsement that HMRC were aware of the scheme being sold and had HMRC approval.
It would be useful to understand the impact of penalties on the promoters
What was the total value of penalties levied against the (less than 5) promoters.
Have HMRC received all the penalty money from the promoters.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 5 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
20 May 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ref: IR2021/11236
Dear Ms Dunn,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement
Thank you for your communication of 19th May which has been passed to
HMRC's Freedom of Information Team.
We have allocated the above reference which you should quote if you need
to contact us.
The Team will arrange for a reply to be sent to you which will either
comply with HMRC's obligations under Freedom of Information Act or, if we
think it's an enquiry that we don't need to address under the terms of the
Act, let you know why. If it is the latter we will, if possible, pass it
on to a more appropriate part of the Department f or answer.
As you will appreciate, the coronavirus pandemic has provided
unprecedented challenges for Government Departments including HMRC. Over
the coming weeks our priorities are to provide critical existing and new
Public Services for Government to support customers during this difficult
time. As a result, resources may be diverted away from usual compliance or
information rights work. HMRC aims to respond to all FOIA Requests within
20 working days. If for whatever reason this timescale cannot be complied
with HMRC will, where possible, write to you explaining the reason for the
delay and providing an estimated time for response.
Yours sincerely
HMRC Freedom of Information Act Team
================================================================================
MESSAGE 6 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
21 June 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Central Team,
It appears that you have allocated a reference number designating your response as an Internal Review. I did not request an Internal Review.
Please respond as an FOI request, not an Internal Review
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 7 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
21 June 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Attachment
IR2021 11236 Pauline Dunn.pdf
201K
View
Download
Dear Ms Dunn,
We are writing in response to your Internal Review request, received 19
May.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Freedom of Information Team
================================================================================
MESSAGE 8 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
22 June 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Central Team,
I DID NOT REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW
Please answer the questions rather than fobbing me off with an internal review.
There is no reason why you cannot provide answers to the questions.
You have stated that providing the exact numbers would not be beneficial to the public interest. It is of course directly in the public interest when one of the key arms of our public services are making false claims about their effectiveness.
Questions 1
Please provide the number of promoters that HMRC used as the basis for the number of promoters in 2014. This IS in the public interest to know as a direct comparison to the number now in the market.
Question 2
I'll repeat my previous assertion that knowing who they are would be much more useful to the public. Duncan, the latest gimmic on Twitter by HMRC would likely not have fallen for the scheme has HMRC published the list of promoters. Again it IS in the public interest to know the know the number of promoters in the market and would be even better if their names were published on HMRC's website. HMRC regularly names high profile taxpayers that use avoidance schemes, there seems to be no reason not to release the names of those that are promoting them to less sophisticated taxpayers.
Question 3
Please confirm that there are now the same number or more promoters than there were in 2014.
Question 4
What was the total value of penalties levied against tax avoidance scheme promoters?
What amount of money has been received from the penalties levied?
I think your response to this question discussing prison sentences is wholly misleading, as I don't believe that any promoters of schemes related to the Loan Charge have been given prison sentences. The cases you are quoting were not related to the Loan Charge and only mirror the dishonest answer given to the House of Lords Finance Committee.
Please answer the questions provided in this FOI request rather than providing HMRC propaganda.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
ATTACHMENT TEXT EXTRACTION / OCR
================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: 20210514_FOI2021_07759.pdf
TEXT_FILE: 20210514_FOI2021_07759.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- PDF page 1 ---
Information is available in large print, audio and Braille formats.
Text Relay service prefix number – 18001
OFFICIAL
Freedom of Information Team
S1715
6 Floor
Central Mail Unit
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE98 1ZZ
Ms Pauline Dunn
By email: request-749476-
f9103ae9@whatdotheyknow.com
Email
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 19 May 2021
Our ref:
FOI2021/07759
Dear Ms Dunn
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your request, which was received on 21 April, for the following information:
“A recent response by HMT to a FOI request reference FOI2021/10737 made the following
statement
"HMRC has introduced a penalty regime for anyone who designs, sells, or otherwise
enables the use of a tax avoidance arrangement. Vigorous activity by HMRC has led to a
significant proportion of promoters having left the avoidance market since 2014. "
I would like to understand and validate the mathematics of this statement as it implies that
HMRC know how many and who the promoters are.
1) How many tax avoidance scheme promoters were there in 2014?
2) How many tax avoidance scheme promoters are currently in the avoidance market?
3) The term "significant" is used. What value does significant equate to?
4) How many promoters have received penalties”
We can confirm we hold some information within the scope of your request.
Questions 1
We do not hold information for the precise number of tax avoidance scheme promoters as at
2014.
Questions 2
We can confirm that there are currently between 20-30 promoters still in the market. Having
considered your request, we have withheld the exact number under section 31(1)(d) of
FOIA. We believe that disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the
assessment and collection of tax. If disclosed, this information could be used by those who
are promoting or operating tax avoidance schemes and those in their supply chains to
further their efforts to avoid tax.
Section 31 is a qualified exemption. Where it applies, we must consider whether the balance
of the public interest favours disclosing or withholding the information.
--- PDF page 2 ---
2
OFFICIAL
We accept that there is strong public interest in ensuring that HMRC is accountable for its
activities and is as transparent as possible about the way that it applies its resources.
Publishing the exact number of promoters still in the market would, on the face of it,
reassure the public that our compliance activities are fair and robust and applied equitably
across our range of customers.
Against that, we have taken into account that there is a strong public interest in HMRC being
able to enforce the law properly so that the tax burden is shared equally and fairly.
Providing this information may put at risk our compliance activities which could undermine
public confidence in the tax system. This could damage the general climate of honesty
among the overwhelming majority of taxpayers who use the system properly and that too is
not in the public interest.
Taking a balanced view, we conclude that it is not in the public interest to disclose this
information.
Question 3
As a result of HMRC’s robust action against promoters of tax avoidance schemes, around
25 promoters have left the market since 2014. This figure, combined with the range of 20-30
current promoters given in our response to question 2 above, indicate that a significant
proportion of promoters have left the market since 2014.
Question 4
A key component of HMRC’s strategy in tackling the promoters of tax avoidance schemes is
to change their behaviour so that they stop this activity altogether. Charging penalties is not
the only sanction available under the existing regimes to tackle promoters of tax avoidance
schemes. Existing regimes such as the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS)
and the Promoters of Tax Avoidance Schemes (POTAS) have had a positive impact in
changing the behaviour of some promoters, and a number of promoters have now
cooperated with HMRC and have either stopped selling schemes or ceased in business
altogether as a result of HMRC’s concerted action against them.
We can confirm that fewer than 5 penalties have been charged under DOTAS since the
Counter-Avoidance Directorate was created in 2013. The exact number has been withheld
under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA, which applies when information is prohibited from disclosure
by another piece of legislation. In this instance, the relevant legislation is section 23(1) of
the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA).
When deciding whether we are prohibited from releasing information under section 23(1)
CRCA, we are required to consider two questions:
•
is the requested information held in connection with one of our functions? And
•
does the information relate to a "person" who is identified, or who could be identified
from the information requested?
CRCA explanatory note 110 makes clear the term "person" includes both natural and legal
persons, so, for example, entities such as companies, trusts and charities.
In this case, the answers to both questions are "Yes". Firstly, the information is held in
connection with our functions because the information is held for the purpose of assessment
and collection of tax. Secondly, the requested information also relates to a person who could
be identified due to the very low number of individuals involved. This means that it is likely
that disclosure of this information would allow the attribution to and identification of the
individuals concerned.
--- PDF page 3 ---
3
OFFICIAL
Accordingly, the section 44(1)(a) FOIA exemption is engaged and our duty of confidentiality
under section 18(1) of the CRCA removes any possibility of disclosure on a discretionary
basis.
If you are not satisfied with this reply you may request a review within two months by
emailing foi.review@hmrc.gov.uk, or by writing to the address at the top right-hand side of
this letter.
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review you can complain to the
Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
HM Revenue and Customs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: IR2021_11236_Pauline_Dunn.pdf
TEXT_FILE: IR2021_11236_Pauline_Dunn.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- PDF page 1 ---
Information is available in large print, audio and Braille formats.
Text Relay service prefix number – 18001
Freedom of Information Team
S1715
6 Floor
Central Mail Unit
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE98 1ZZ
Ms Pauline Dunn
By email: request-749476-
f9103ae9@whatdotheyknow.com
Email
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 21 June 2021
Our ref:
IR2021/11236
Dear Ms Dunn
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your email of 19 May, which seeks a review of our original response to your
information request.
Original request
On 21 April 2021, you asked for the following information:
"HMRC has introduced a penalty regime for anyone who designs, sells, or otherwise
enables the use of a tax avoidance arrangement. Vigorous activity by HMRC has led to a
significant proportion of promoters having left the avoidance market since 2014. " I would
like to understand and validate the mathematics of this statement as it implies that HMRC
know how many and who the promoters are.
1) How many tax avoidance scheme promoters were there in 2014?
2) How many tax avoidance scheme promoters are currently in the avoidance market?
3) The term "significant" is used. What value does significant equate to?
4) How many promoters have received penalties”
Our response
We replied on 19 May 2021, saying we held some information within scope of your request
and provided that information.
Internal review request
On 19 May you asked us to review our handling of your request:
“Thank you for the response to my FOI request ref: FOI2021 07759
The question was trying to elicit from HMRC how many promoters were active in 2014 and
how many were active in 2021 given that HMRC are making bold statements "Vigorous
activity by HMRC has led to a significant proportion of promoters having left the avoidance
market since 2014. " is rather misleading as it appears that the vigorous activity isn't putting
off new entrants into this market.
The implication of your response is that there are roughly as many promoters now as there
were in 2014. There may even be more. In many cases the same promoters change the
--- PDF page 2 ---
2
OFFICIAL
name or brand that they are operating under, but the same people are operating it.
If you know that 25 have left the field then it follows that you know who they were and must
have a precise number from 2014.
Question 1
There must be a precise answer or at least one that HMRC work to if the are to make
statements of their success. Please provide the number that HMRC used as the basis for
the number of promoters in 2014.
Question 2
I fail to see how revealing the number of promoters affects HMRC's ability to enforce the
law. I actually think that it would be much more in the public interest for HMRC to reveal the
names of these promoters in order to protect taxpayers.
I have not asked for the names but I believe that HMRC should provide the number of
promoters today.
Please provide the number.
Question 3
I agree that 25 promoters leaving the field is a significant portion of 20-30. Of course if there
are now more promoters in 2021 the bold claim made in the HMRC statement looks at best,
disingenuous.
Question 4
Doing some of the maths. If 25 have left the market and there are between 20 and 30
current promoters. The number that have been penalised is less than 5. This means that
only 10% of the promoters have been penalised.
The claim that DOTAS is a deterrent is quite laughable as most promoters were using it as
an endorsement that HMRC were aware of the scheme being sold and had HMRC approval.
It would be useful to understand the impact of penalties on the promoters What was the total
value of penalties levied against the (less than 5) promoters.
Have HMRC received all the penalty money from the promoters.”
Internal review
The purpose of this review is to assess how your request was handled and to determine
whether the original decision given to you was correct.
We received your request on 21 April 2021 and replied by email on 19 May 2021. This was
within the statutory deadline in compliance with section 10(1) of the FOIA.
The response also set out our review procedure and your right to complain to the
Information Commissioner, as required by section 17(7) of the FOIA.
Considerations
I have reviewed your original request and our original response alongside your request for
an Internal review.
I can confirm that we do not hold recorded information that states the number of tax
avoidance scheme promoters as at 2014.
In our original response we explained that there are currently between 20-30 tax avoidance
promoters in the market and withheld the exact number under section 31 (1)(d) of FOIA. As
this is a qualified exemption, I have taken into account whether it would be in the public
interest to provide the exact number of promoters currently in the market and weighed this
against any potential risk to HMRC compliance activities and our responsibility to maintain
public confidence in the tax system.
After consideration, I have not been able to establish strong reasoning why providing an
exact figure would be of more benefit to the public than providing a narrow range. However, I
can see how revealing the precise information we hold publicly could lead to putting HMRC
compliance activity at risk with the potential to undermine public trust in the tax system. For
this reason I believe the public interest does not favour providing a specific figure.
--- PDF page 3 ---
3
OFFICIAL
I can confirm that we do hold the information requested in Question 4 of your internal review.
However, the information is exempt from release under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA, which
applies when information is prohibited from disclosure by other legislation. In this instance,
the relevant legislation is section 23(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act
2005 (CRCA).
When deciding whether we are prohibited from releasing information under section 23(1)
CRCA, we are required to consider two questions:
•
is the requested information held in connection with one of our functions? And
•
does the information relate to a "person" who is identified, or who could be identified
from the information requested?
CRCA explanatory note 110 makes clear the term "person" includes both natural and legal
persons, so, for example, entities such as companies, trusts and charities.
In this case, the answers to both questions is "Yes". First, the information is held in
connection with our functions because the information is held for the purpose of assessment
and collection of tax. Secondly, the request identifies information relating to one or more
individual taxpayers which, in conjunction with information publicly available, could lead to
the identification of the individual taxpayer/s.
Accordingly, the section 44(1)(a) FOIA exemption is engaged and our duty of confidentiality
under section 18(1) of the CRCA removes any possibility of disclosure on a discretionary
basis.
Further information
HMRC remain committed to tackling those who promote and operate tax avoidance
schemes. In March 2020, we published our strategy for tackling promoters, which sets out
our work to date and outlines how we continue to take robust action against promoters of tax
avoidance.
The strategy explains that HMRC continue to use a range of tools including the DOTAS
regime and criminal sanctions, where appropriate, to tackle avoidance promoters. Since the
formation of HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service on 1 April 2016, more than 20 individuals
have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and
marketed as tax avoidance. These have resulted in over 100 years custodial, with more than
7 years suspended sentences being ordered. More information is available in the strategy
document at the following GOV.UK web address:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-promoters-of-mass-marketed-tax-
avoidance-schemes
Further to this, there are new measures in the 2021 Finance Act which will strengthen our
existing anti-avoidance regimes and help us act more swiftly against promoters. We also
recently published a consultation on 23 March 2021 on a further package of measures to
ensure promoters face stronger sanctions more quickly and which would enable HMRC to
name promoters and their schemes at an earlier stage than we can currently. The
consultation closed on 1 June 2021 and we are considering the responses.
Conclusion
Having carefully considered how we handled your original request I am upholding the
response which was provided to you.
Appeal process
If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review you can complain to the
Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
HM Revenue and Customs