← Back to imported archive search
Tax Avoidance Promoter Statistics -Take 2
Source: WhatDoTheyKnow
Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
Status: We're waiting for
Pauline Dunn (Account suspended)
to read a recent response and update the status.
Imported path: /opt/loancharge/imports/wdtk/requests/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2
Open original request on WhatDoTheyKnow
Imported text
SOURCE: WhatDoTheyKnow
SOURCE_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2
TITLE: Tax Avoidance Promoter Statistics -Take 2
AUTHORITY: HM Revenue and Customs
AUTHORITY_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hmrc
STATUS: We're waiting for
Pauline Dunn (Account suspended)
to read a recent response and update the status.
REQUEST_SLUG: tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2
CAPTURED_AT: 2026-05-19T07:10:36+00:00
PROVENANCE: {"first_seen_at": "2026-05-18T12:54:55", "first_seen_page": "1", "first_query_term": "\"Loan Charge\"", "first_date_after": "2022/01/01", "first_date_before": "2023/01/01", "matched_query_terms": "\"Loan Charge\" | \"disguised remuneration\"", "matched_date_ranges": "2021/01/01 to 2022/01/01 | 2022/01/01 to 2023/01/01", "first_search_url_template": "https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/%22Loan%20Charge%22/requests?commit=Filter&query=%22Loan+Charge%22&request_date_after=2022%2F01%2F01&request_date_before=2023%2F01%2F01&request_variety%5B%5D=sent&request_variety%5B%5D=response&request_variety%5B%5D=comment&sortby=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&page="}
ATTACHMENTS:
- FOI2021_14894.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2/response/1843778/attach/3/FOI2021%2014894.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 199449 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2/response/1843778/attach/html/3/FOI2021%2014894.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
- FOI2021_14894_003.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2/response/1856716/attach/3/FOI2021%2014894.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 208871 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2/response/1856716/attach/html/3/FOI2021%2014894.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
- IR2021_19402.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2/response/1873186/attach/3/IR2021%2019402.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 201880 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tax_avoidance_promoter_statistic_2/response/1873186/attach/html/3/IR2021%2019402.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
================================================================================
MESSAGE 1 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
1 July 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
Thank you for the response to my FOI request ref: FOI2021 07759.
Oddly you turned this into an internal review that I had not requested IR2021/11236.
This means that the questions remained unanswered.
The implication of your response in FOI2021 07759 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.
Referring ahead to the three questions below. It may be that the answer to question 2 is a larger number than that for question 1, but that uncomfortable fact should not stop HMRC providing the information requested. It should also be simple to be able to provide the answer to question 3 without revealing the name of any individual or company. Any criminal prosecutions would be on the public record, I'm not aware of any. It may also be an uncomfortable fact that the number of tax avoidance promoters penalised is low and the amount of penalties is extremely low, but that should not mean that question 3 cannot be answered.
Question 1
Please provide the number of tax avoidance scheme promoters that HMRC considered to be active 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 active today.
Please provide the number.
Question 3
HMRC have confirmed in FOI2021/07759 that the number of promoters that have been penalised is less than 5. Please do not conflate promoters of tax avoidance schemes with prosecutions for totally unrelated activity as you did in IR2021/11236
What was the total value of penalties levied against the tax avoidance promoters?
Have HMRC received all the penalty money from the promoters?
Yours faithfully,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 2 [incoming]
HEADER: HM Revenue and Customs
1 July 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Pauline Dunn
HMRC responded to your request, reference FOI2021/07759 on 19 May 2021. On the same day you responded with a number of challenges to the department's response on an email with the subject: ' Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Tax Avoidance - Promoter statistics'.
HMRC acknowledged your request for a review 20 May 2021 and after considering your representations, provided its response on 21 June 2021. If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review you can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office.
We note that your recent correspondence poses different questions to the department. An acknowledgement confirming that this is being considered as a separate request will be sent to you in due course.
Kind regards
HMRC Information Rights Unit
OFFICIAL
show quoted sections
================================================================================
MESSAGE 3 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
1 July 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ref: FOI2021/14894
Dear Pauline Dunn,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement
Thank you for your communication of 1st July 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 Depart ment 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 4 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
1 July 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Central Team,
I have checked the WDTK audit trail and I cannot find any reference to asking for an internal review.
Alongside the required for FOI2021/14894, please also provide the evidence that an internal review was requested for FOI2021 07759
Having observed quite a number of FOI requests to HMRC it is apparent that requesting an internal review is pointless other than to be able to take it to the ICO.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 5 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
28 July 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Attachment
FOI2021 14894.pdf
194K
View
Download
Dear Ms Dunn
The date that the response is due for your request, FOI2021/14894, has
been changed to 31st August
Kind Regards
HMRC Freedom of Information team
================================================================================
MESSAGE 6 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
2 August 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Central Team,
Thank you for informing me of the delay and why you may wish to withhold the requested information.
I'd like to repeat that a public interest test would likely favour revealing not only the numbers of promoters , but their names given the damage they are causing.
I would have thought it to be in HMRC's interest to provide the information being requested as it will show their actions to stop the promotion of avoidance schemes.
Of course withholding it implies that the actions of HMRC are less than effective than HMRC are publically claiming.
Transparency in this issue is vital to demonstrate to our law makers that HMRC need the laws and teeth to tackle the promoters rather than the victims of these schemes.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 7 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
17 August 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Attachment
FOI2021 14894.pdf
203K
View
Download
Dear Ms Dunn,
We are writing in response to your request for information, received 1
July.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Freedom of Information Team
================================================================================
MESSAGE 8 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
18 August 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of HM Revenue and Customs's handling of my FOI request 'Tax Avoidance Promoter Statistics -Take 2'.
I do not believe that HMRC is right to withhold information on the grounds of section 44 of the FOIA as supplying it would not require the test to be invoked. No person would be identified by revealing this monetary value.
Regarding question 3 which you have withheld information on the total value of penalties levied against disguised remuneration tax avoidance promoters on the grounds that it might disclose the identity of a 'person'. Section 44 of the FOIA.
I have not asked for the name of anyone or any promoter of the less than 5 you state were penalised.
The request was for the total amount of penalties levied against the less than 5 disguised remuneration tax avoidance promoters. Providing this information would not identify the 'person' being penalised.
I request that you reconsider your response and provide the value of these penalties.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...
Yours faithfully,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 9 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
18 August 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ref: IR2021/19402
Dear Ms Dunn,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement
Thank you for your communication of 18th August 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 10 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
19 August 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Central Team,
I do not believe that HMRC is right to withhold information on the grounds of section 44 of the FOIA as supplying it would not require the test to be invoked. No person would be identified by revealing this monetary value.
Regarding question 3 which you have withheld information on the total value of penalties levied against disguised remuneration tax avoidance promoters on the grounds that it might disclose the identity of a 'person'. Section 44 of the FOIA.
I have not asked for the name of anyone or any promoter of the less than 5 you state were penalised.
The request was for the total amount of penalties levied against the less than 5 disguised remuneration tax avoidance promoters. Providing this information would not identify the 'person' being penalised.
It appears that you have attempted to seriously misrepresent one of those within your last response. You claim that, under section 44 of the FOIA, 'information is exempt information if its disclosure (otherwise that under this Act) by the public authority holding it -
a) is prohibited by or under any enactment, b) is incompatible with any Community obligation, or c) would constitute or be punishable as a contempt of court.
By making use of (a), you continue by referencing section 18(1) of the CRCA, which states that HMRC officials may not disclose information which is held by HMRC in connection with one of its functions. You extend that by use of section 19, which makes it a criminal offence for any member of HMRC’s staff to disclose information relating to a person whose identity can be deduced from such information without a lawful basis for doing so.
It is disappointing - but perhaps indeed unsurprising - to see that you have conveniently decided to deliberately exclude those further clauses in section 18 (Confidentiality) of the CRCA, specifically those which quite clearly state the following:
(2) But subsection (1) does NOT apply to a disclosure -
(c) which is made for the purposes of civil proceedings (whether or not within the United Kingdom) relating to a matter in respect of which the Revenue and Customs have functions,
(d) which is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not within the United Kingdom) relating to a matter in respect of which the Revenue and Customs have functions.
It is therefore evident that the use of a claimed exemption under section 44 of the FOIA, when referencing section 18(1) of the CRCA, does NOT apply when the information sought is as stated in 18(2)(c) or (d). The information you are attempting to withhold would already have been disclosed in open court (either civil or criminal - it is clear that both are covered) by HMRC, and subsequently trying to utilise section 19 to somehow suggest that disclosure would constitute a criminal offence given the fact that these are past cases is simply nonsense - and also renders your attempted use of section 23 of the CRCA wholly redundant.
As a result, your use of section 44 of the FOIA to withhold disclosure of the monetary value should be disclosed forthwith.
I request that you reconsider your response and provide the value of these penalties.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 11 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Team,
HM Revenue and Customs
10 September 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Attachment
IR2021 19402.pdf
197K
View
Download
Dear Ms Dunn,
We are writing in response to your request for information, received 18
August.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Freedom of Information Team
================================================================================
MESSAGE 12 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
10 September 2021
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Team,
Thank you for the internal review of your response.
I also thank you for pointing me at the ICO case FS50552081 which you claim as a precedent for not providing the information requested.
I do not think that the ICO case is sufficiently similar to the details I'm requesting.
The ICO case requested the number of penalties issued which was less than 5
HMRC have already provided the information that there were less than 5 promoters.
This request is asking for the total value of penalties applied to the less than 5 promoters.
There is simply no way given that the names of the promoters has not been provided that it would be possible to identify an individual one if the total value of penalties imposed on them was to be revealed.
HMRC has made significant claims about how it is taking vigorous action and bearing down on the promoters of tax avoidance schemes. It has already accepted that the number of promoters that it has taken action against in the last seven years (since 2014) is less than 5 out of the more than 20 promoters that were active in 2014 and the 27 or more that are currently active today.
The purpose of this FOI was to test the claims that HMRC were taking significant action against promoters and whether the penalties being levied were sufficient to put off further promoters entering this field of business. There is clear evidence that the penalties being levied and the number being penalised is not discouraging new entrants.
I will request that the ICO adjudicate on this matter as I believe it to be a matter of public interest to know the total value of penalties levied as confirmation of the ineffectiveness of HMRC policies and the dishonest claims they are publishing.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 13 [outgoing]
HEADER: Pauline Dunn
5 February 2022
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Team,
This relates to IR2021/19402, FOI2021/07759 and FOI2021/14894
Following on from my requests for information which you declined to provide using section 44 of the FOI as it might identify an individual as the number was less than 5 promoters have been prosecuted these has been an interesting turn.
Daisy Cooper MP raised a question to the Treasury
"To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many promoters and operators of schemes now subject to the Loan Charge have been prosecuted for promoting and operating those schemes to date."
It was answered by the current FST, Lucy Fraser MP
"Promotion or operation of mass marketed tax avoidance schemes is not in and of itself a criminal offence. However, there are a range of offences which might be committed by those who promote tax avoidance schemes or advise on their use.
On that basis, to date, while there have been no prosecutions of individuals related to schemes subject to the Loan Charge, a number of individuals are currently under criminal investigation by HMRC for offences linked to schemes subject to the Loan Charge.
In addition to schemes subject to the Loan Charge, since 1 April 2016, more than 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance, including offences related to disguised remuneration. These have resulted in over 100 years of custodial sentences, the majority of which relate to promoters.
HMRC are committed to continuing to tackle promoters and operators of tax avoidance schemes. This includes challenging the entities and individuals who promote disguised remuneration loan schemes.
Prosecutions are only one type of intervention available to HMRC where they identify concerns."
Summarising her response
The answer is NONE, no promoters have been prosecuted for promoting Disguised Remuneration Loan Charge schemes.
The appear totally at odds with the response you provided to me which clearly implied that there were more than zero and less than five. You have used section 44 of the FOIA to inappropriately withhold information.
This is in breach of section 77 of the FOIA which makes it a criminal offence
Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and provide any update/clarification to the responses you provided earlier.
Yours sincerely,
Pauline Dunn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 14 [incoming]
HEADER: HM Revenue and Customs
7 February 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Dunn,
Your information request, reference FOI2021/07759 has already been
considered under HMRC's internal complaints process as IR2021/11236.
FOI2021/14894 has also been considered under this process as IR2021/19402.
If you are not content with the outcome of either of these internal
reviews you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Whilst we are unable to consider your further complaint at this time, we
are able to clarify that both of your requests sought information
regarding civil penalties rather than criminal prosecution.
Kind regards
HMRC Information Rights Unit
OFFICIAL
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.
HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.
This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.
================================================================================
ATTACHMENT TEXT EXTRACTION / OCR
================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: FOI2021_14894.pdf
TEXT_FILE: FOI2021_14894.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- 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-770081-
255e8ea7@whatdotheyknow.com
Email
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 28 July 2021
Our ref:
FOI2021/14894
Dear Ms Dunn
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your request, which was received on 1 July, for the following information:
“Question 1
Please provide the number of tax avoidance scheme promoters that HMRC considered to be
active 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 active today.
Please provide the number.
Question 3
HMRC have confirmed in FOI2021/07759 that the number of promoters that have been
penalised is less than 5. Please do not conflate promoters of tax avoidance schemes with
prosecutions for totally unrelated activity as you did in IR2021/11236 What was the total
value of penalties levied against the tax avoidance promoters?
Have HMRC received all the penalty money from the promoters?”
We can confirm we hold information relevant to your request. However, we need to extend
the 20 working-day time limit for responding to your request.
Under section 10(3), when public authorities have to consider the balance of the public
interest, in relation to a request, they do not have to comply with the request until such time
as is reasonable in the circumstances. Owing to the need to consider where the balance of
the public interest lies, in relation to your request, we will not be able to respond in full within
20 working days
This is because some of the information you have requested is being considered with
reference to the exemption at section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA.
--- PDF page 2 ---
2
OFFICIAL
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: FOI2021_14894_003.pdf
TEXT_FILE: FOI2021_14894_003.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-770081-
255e8ea7@whatdotheyknow.com
Email
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 17 August 2021
Our ref:
FOI2021/14894
Dear Ms Dunn
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your request, which was received on 1 July, for the following information:
“Question 1
Please provide the number of tax avoidance scheme promoters that HMRC considered to be
active 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 active today.
Please provide the number.
Question 3
HMRC have confirmed in FOI2021/07759 that the number of promoters that have been
penalised is less than 5. Please do not conflate promoters of tax avoidance schemes with
prosecutions for totally unrelated activity as you did in IR2021/11236 What was the total
value of penalties levied against the tax avoidance promoters?
Have HMRC received all the penalty money from the promoters?”
Our Response
Question 1 – As explained to you in a previous FOI response (FOI2021/07759) and a
previous Internal Review response (IR2021/11236), HMRC does not hold recorded
information which states the number of active tax avoidance scheme promoters in 2014.
Question 2 – We previously stated 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 exemption is qualified by the public interest test, I have considered whether it would be
in the public interest to provide the figure for active 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.
--- PDF page 2 ---
2
OFFICIAL
Given the continued public interest in our work to tackle promoters and further measures
introduced recently to support this work, on balance I have concluded that the public interest
in providing this figure can be judged to outweigh the public interest in withholding it.
Accordingly, I can share that as at 30 June 2021 our working figure for the number of active
promoter organisations in the market was 27. Though we still consider that providing a range
remains appropriate because this figure is liable to fluctuate as analysis of new information
on avoidance schemes and promoter structures constantly feeds into our identification of
active promoters.
It is also useful context to understand that a promoter organisation of mass-marketed tax
avoidance schemes describes those who design or market tax avoidance schemes or are
responsible for their management or organisation. Promoter organisations typically involve
an association of individuals and a range of entities, which can include a network of enablers
who facilitate the schemes. We pursue these active promoter organisations via a range of
intensive investigations into the tax affairs of the individuals behind the promotion, their
associates, and their business entities.
Question 3 – Our previous response states that fewer than 5 penalties have been charged
under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) regime since 2013. There is a
range of legislation and anti-avoidance regimes under which promoters can be penalised,
including criminal sanctions where appropriate.
We do hold the information requested in your third question in relation to DOTAS penalties.
However, as explained in IR2021/11236, 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 connec-
tion 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 individ-
ual taxpayers which, in conjunction with information publicly available, could lead to the iden-
tification 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.
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
--- PDF page 3 ---
3
OFFICIAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: IR2021_19402.pdf
TEXT_FILE: IR2021_19402.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- 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-770081-
255e8ea7@whatdotheyknow.com
Email
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 10 September 2021
Our ref:
IR2021/19402
Dear Ms Dunn
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your email of 18 August, which seeks a review of our original response to your
information request.
You have contested HMRC’s application of section 44(1)(a) FOIA to your request seeking
the total value of penalties which have been charged under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance
Schemes (DOTAS) regime since 2013.
Section 44 of FOIA states that:
Information is exempt information if its disclosure (otherwise that under this Act) by the
public authority holding it –
a) is prohibited by or under any enactment,
b) is incompatible with any Community obligation, or
c) would constitute or be punishable as a contempt of court.
The enactment in this case is the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (the
CRCA).
Section 18(1) of the CRCA states that HMRC officials may not disclose information which is
held by HMRC in connection with one of its functions.
For the purposes of FOIA, section 18(1) only acts as a statutory prohibition where section
23(1) of the CRCA is also satisfied.
Section 23 provides that the section 44 exemption in FOIA will apply where disclosure –
a) would specify the identity of the person to whom the information relates, or
b) would enable the identity of such a person to be deduced.
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.
Your request seeks an aggregate figure, I agree that this figure in itself would not allow for
the identification of a person.
--- PDF page 2 ---
2
OFFICIAL
However, you have previously been advised that this figure relates to less than five persons,
when considering the disclosure of information relating to a small number of persons, it is
appropriate for HMRC to consider the likelihood of a person’s identity being deduced.
Having viewed the withheld information, I have surmised that were this information to be
read in conjunction with that already in the public domain then the identities of the persons to
which the information relates could be extrapolated. In reaching this determination I have
been guided by a previous ICO Decision Notice1 on a closely related matter.
I have therefore concluded that HMRC’s initial response to your request was correct and
compliant with the requirements of the Act.
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
1 fs_50552081.pdf (ico.org.uk)