← Back to imported archive search
Updates to HMRC Avoidance Handling Process Manual scheduled for December 2022
Source: WhatDoTheyKnow
Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
Status: The request was
successful
.
Imported path: /opt/loancharge/imports/wdtk/requests/updates_to_hmrc_avoidance_handli
Open original request on WhatDoTheyKnow
Imported text
SOURCE: WhatDoTheyKnow
SOURCE_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/updates_to_hmrc_avoidance_handli
TITLE: Updates to HMRC Avoidance Handling Process Manual scheduled for December 2022
AUTHORITY: HM Revenue and Customs
AUTHORITY_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hmrc
STATUS: The request was
successful
.
REQUEST_SLUG: updates_to_hmrc_avoidance_handli
CAPTURED_AT: 2026-05-19T07:20:40+00:00
PROVENANCE: {"first_seen_at": "2026-05-18T13:02:54", "first_seen_page": "1", "first_query_term": "\"S684\"", "first_date_after": "2001/01/01", "first_date_before": "2027/01/01", "matched_query_terms": "\"S684\"", "matched_date_ranges": "2001/01/01 to 2027/01/01", "first_search_url_template": "https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/%22S684%22/requests?commit=Filter&query=%22S684%22&request_date_after=2001%2F01%2F01&request_date_before=2027%2F01%2F01&request_variety%5B%5D=sent&request_variety%5B%5D=response&request_variety%5B%5D=comment&sortby=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&page="}
ATTACHMENTS:
- 20230222_updated_684_7A_b_ITEPA_2003_guidance_to_be_published_pdf_version.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/updates_to_hmrc_avoidance_handli/response/2285018/attach/3/20230222%20updated%20684%207A%20b%20ITEPA%202003%20guidance%20to%20be%20published%20pdf%20version.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 457277 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/updates_to_hmrc_avoidance_handli/response/2285018/attach/html/3/20230222%20updated%20684%207A%20b%20ITEPA%202003%20guidance%20to%20be%20published%20pdf%20version.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
- 230411_FOI2023_16081_FINAL.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/updates_to_hmrc_avoidance_handli/response/2285018/attach/4/230411%20FOI2023%2016081%20FINAL.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 73005 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/updates_to_hmrc_avoidance_handli/response/2285018/attach/html/4/230411%20FOI2023%2016081%20FINAL.pdf.html | | 0 bytes
================================================================================
MESSAGE 1 [outgoing]
HEADER: Trevor Stearn
9 March 2023
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
HMRC has published a list of internal guidance manuals which are not publicly available. One of these is the above manual termed the Avoidance Handling Process manual or AHP manual.
This manual was updated 29 March 2021 and the next update was due to be done by the 18 December 2022.
This is a request for HMRC to confirm the date of their latest update to this manual post 29 March 2021 and if updated to please provide the following information.
This is a request for HMRC to publish the changes made to the 29 March 2021 version of this manual included within the December 18 2022 version and/or latest update.
If there are valid reasons for HMRC not sharing all of the most recent amendments, please share the amended sections from the most recent updated version of the manual that relate to the terms "ITEPA 2003, s684(7A)(b), PAYE regulations, contractor loan schemes, self-employment and offshore.”
I note from FOI 2022/17647 that HMRC published the complete relevant sections of the 29 March 2021 AHP manual.
Yours faithfully,
Trevor Stearn
================================================================================
MESSAGE 2 [incoming]
HEADER: Team, FOI,
HM Revenue and Customs
10 March 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ref: FOI2023/16081
Dear Trevor Stearn,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement
Thank you for your communication of 9 March.
We have allocated the above reference which you should quote if you need
to contact us.
We will arrange for a reply to be sent to you which will either comply
with our 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 for answer.
While we aim to respond to all freedom of information requests within 20
working days, if for some reason this timescale cannot be complied with,
we will, where possible, write to you explaining the reason for the delay
and provide an estimated time for response.
Yours sincerely
HMRC Freedom of Information Team
================================================================================
MESSAGE 3 [incoming]
HEADER: Team, FOI,
HM Revenue and Customs
11 April 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Attachments
20230222 updated 684 7A b ITEPA 2003 guidance to be published pdf version.pdf
446K
View
Download
230411 FOI2023 16081 FINAL.pdf
71K
View
Download
Dear Trevor Stearn,
We are writing in response to your request for information, received 9
March.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Freedom of Information Team
================================================================================
ATTACHMENT TEXT EXTRACTION / OCR
================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: 20230222_updated_684_7A_b_ITEPA_2003_guidance_to_be_published_pdf_version.pdf
TEXT_FILE: 20230222_updated_684_7A_b_ITEPA_2003_guidance_to_be_published_pdf_version.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- PDF page 1 ---
1
This guidance about S684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 and offshore
contractor loans schemes has been moved from its previous
location in the Avoidance Handling Process (AHP) to make it
more accessible to colleagues working in Counter-Avoidance.
The version below replaces the previous version in the AHP.
Section 1 - S684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 'PAYE Regulations' and
offshore contractor loans schemes: Overview and Background
The following guidance (Sections 1-10) only applies to offshore employer contractor loans
schemes used in any tax year, and offshore trading loans schemes used prior to 2014/15 -
both being dealt with by Counter-Avoidance. These schemes are referred to collectively as
‘offshore contractor loans schemes’ throughout this guidance. Sometimes, the guidance
stipulates that different types of schemes and usages are to be considered differently. This is
because different pieces of legislation are relevant to different types of schemes, used in
different years. When this is the case, the guidance explains which specific types of schemes
and/or usage that specific information applies to.
Any officer of HMRC not working in CCG Counter-Avoidance who is considering use of
s684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 (“s684(7A)(b)”) to disapply the PAYE regulations in any scenario
(including schemes and usages covered by this guidance), should contact the Tax
Administration Policy & Strategy team in TAD.
These sections are intended to be read as a whole. Before any decision or approval is made
under Sections 4 (a), 4 (b) or 4 (1) the officer making the decision must have read and
understood the entirety of Sections 1-10.
Background
This guidance applies where an officer is satisfied from the information available to them that
the sums received by the contractor purportedly in the form of loans could be taxable as
employment income and no tax has been accounted for or paid to HMRC under PAYE in
respect of the taxable amount.
Taxpayers can use arrangements that disguise the nature of the monies they receive for work
done. Money received by taxpayers for the provision of their service(s) can be taxable under
various provisions depending on the facts, as employment income, trading income, or under
other provisions.
Where a taxpayer is employed, an amount taxable as employment income will be PAYE
income. The PAYE Regulations may apply to any relevant payment of PAYE income. If so, a
person in the UK may be required to account to HMRC for tax in accordance with the
Regulations.
Where a taxpayer is not employed and provides services to a person via a third party under
the terms of an agency contract, the agency workers legislation at Chapter 7 of Part 2 ITEPA
2003 may apply to the arrangements. Where the agency workers legislation applies the
taxpayer is treated as holding an employment with the third party agency and any
--- PDF page 2 ---
2
remuneration receivable as a result of that agency contract is treated for income tax purposes
as earnings from that employment. PAYE will apply to any amount treated as earnings, as it
does for relevant payments made by an employer, so that a person in the UK may be required
to operate PAYE.
As such, in Sections 1-10, references to:
•
‘employment’ should be read as including any deemed
employment,
•
‘employer’ should be read as including any entity with which a
taxpayer is treated as holding a deemed employment,
•
‘employment income’ should be read as including any amounts
treated as earnings of an employment,
•
‘employee’ should be read as including an individual who is
treated as holding a deemed employment.
PAYE is a collection mechanism which in normal circumstances simplifies the collection of tax
due from most employees on their employment income, by requiring it to be deducted at
source by the person making a relevant payment of PAYE income and reported and paid to
HMRC. It achieves this by placing the liability to pay the tax in the first place on the ‘payer’,
who deducts the tax due from payments to the employee. However, the person chargeable
to tax is the employee, so the ultimate liability to tax remains theirs.
Where there is an assessment of an individual’s liability to income tax for a tax year, for
example an ITSA return made under s8 TMA 1970 or a discovery assessment under s29 TMA
1970, the difference between the chargeable amount and the payable amount is the income
tax deducted through PAYE. However, where PAYE ought to have been operated but was not,
the amount of that liability collectible from the individual is reduced by the amount of tax
treated as deducted at source by reason of Regulation 185 or 188 of the PAYE
Regulations. The amount treated as deducted at source is the amount which should have
been deducted, or accounted for, under PAYE, but was not. This means that, whilst an
individual’s liability to income tax payable under an assessment is not altered, the amount
they are due to pay, and which can be collected from them is reduced by the amount of tax
due under PAYE but not deducted or accounted for.
Section 684(7A)(b) ITEPA gives HMRC a power to exercise discretion to determine that a
person paying PAYE income (a ‘payer’) is not required to comply with the PAYE regulations in
circumstances in which an officer of HMRC is satisfied that it is unnecessary or not
appropriate to do so.
Key features of an offshore contractor loans scheme
Offshore contractor loans schemes normally include, but are not limited to, the following
features:
•
There is an offshore entity with which the taxpayer has signed either a contract of
employment, or a contract to provide services;
•
The taxpayer’s services are provided to a UK End Client via the offshore entity and one or
more UK intermediaries (UK Agency);
•
The offshore entity pays the taxpayer a relatively small amount of income that is declared as
taxable;
--- PDF page 3 ---
3
•
Where the taxpayer is employed by the offshore entity, PAYE is operated voluntarily on the
payments declared as taxable income;
•
The taxpayer then receives the majority of the fees they earned for their work in the form of
loans, typically from an offshore trust or the offshore entity;
•
The taxpayer does not return these loans as income.
HMRC’s position in instances of offshore contractor loans scheme use
HMRC considers that the loans, the small amount declared as income, and any similar
payments made through the scheme to the taxpayer are assessable as taxable income of the
taxpayer.
PAYE legislation at s689 ITEPA and s44 ITEPA changed, with effect from 6 April 2014. It is
therefore important to consider the period each avoidance scheme is used for and make a
decision on whether it is appropriate to use the discretion separately for the use of each
scheme before and after the legislation changed.
Where the scheme has the features set out above, has been used before the changes in the
legislation from 6 April 2014 and the amounts received may represent PAYE income, HMRC
can consider whether it is appropriate for the PAYE Regulations to apply to an End Client, or
whether to exercise discretion under s684(7A)(b) to determine that the End Client is not
required to comply with the PAYE Regulations.
Where the scheme has the features set out above, has been used after 6 April 2014, and the
amounts received may represent PAYE income, HMRC can consider whether it is appropriate
for the PAYE Regulations to apply to the UK Agency (the entity that contracts directly with
the End Client), or whether to exercise discretion under s684(7A)(b) to determine that the UK
Agency is not required to comply with the PAYE Regulations.
If HMRC exercises this power, they will collect from each taxpayer the income tax due on the
taxable income received through their use of the contractor loans scheme. This is because
there will be no entitlement to have an amount treated as tax deducted at source in respect
of that taxable income. So, where there has been an assessment, any amount of the liability
to income tax which has not already been accounted for under PAYE will be payable by the
taxpayer.
Scheme usage before and from 6 April 2014
HMRC has publicly stated that it expects employers and engagers of contractors to undertake
reasonable due diligence to establish whether they have obligations under PAYE. However,
contractor loan schemes are often complex and frequently interpose several layers between
the offshore employer and the End Client or the UK Agency - the effect of which is to disguise
the nature of the arrangements.
The principles below apply when an officer is considering whether to use the discretion, and
whether it is unnecessary or not appropriate for the End Client or the UK Agency to comply
with PAYE regulations.
For usages up to 5 April 2014
Where there is an employment with an offshore employer, but the employee works for an
entity based in the UK (“the End Client”), section 689 ITEPA 2003 “Employee of non-UK
--- PDF page 4 ---
4
employer” may mean that the End Client could be required to operate PAYE in respect of
amounts paid by the offshore employer to the employee directly or via a trust or other
arrangement.
However, where a contractor loan scheme is used, the nature and operation of the scheme
may therefore mean that reasonable due diligence will be insufficient for the End Client to
identify an obligation to operate PAYE.
For usages from 6 April 2014 onwards
Where there is an employment with an offshore employer, but the employee works for an
entity based in the UK (‘’the End Client’’), the updated section 689 ITEPA 2003 ‘’Employee of a
non-UK employer’’ may mean that the entity which contracts directly with the End Client
(usually the UK agency) could be required to operate PAYE in respect of amounts paid by the
offshore employer to the employee.
Where there is a UK agency contracting with the End Client, that agency should have taken
steps to determine whether the remuneration of the worker was being taxed as employment
income elsewhere in the supply chain under the requirements of section 44 ITEPA. The agency
would need to consider whether it had an obligation to operate PAYE.
However, these DR avoidance arrangements are complex and are constructed in such a way
to prevent the UK Agency from understanding the mechanics. The HMRC officer may be
satisfied that it is reasonable to conclude that the DR arrangements led the UK agency to
understand that PAYE was being operated somewhere else in the supply chain and therefore
they had no obligation to operate PAYE.
It is important to consider the period each avoidance scheme is used for and make a
decision on whether it is appropriate to use the discretion separately for the use of each
scheme before and after the legislation changed. For example, for scheme usages which span
over two periods before and after 6 April 2014 an officer needs to consider the usages
separately and apply the different tests independently when making a decision on whether to
use the discretion.
The decision making process should be recorded for audit trail purposes and needs to
include all facts, relevant information considered as well as any assumptions being made.
--- PDF page 5 ---
5
Section 2 - Section 684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 'PAYE regulations'
and offshore contractor loans schemes: Why would we use
s684(7A)(b) in contractor loans cases?
How S684(7A)(b) can contribute to an appropriate outcome
Where a contractor loans scheme has been used, so that the End Client or the UK Agency
could not reasonably have been aware of the requirement to operate PAYE, they may
nonetheless be liable to account for PAYE tax on a taxpayer’s employment income.
In this scenario, the End Client or the UK Agency (for post 6 April 14 usages), would have been
unable to calculate the tax which they are liable to account for and would not have made
arrangements to recover that amount from the taxpayer. But the taxpayer may be entitled to
have an amount treated as tax deducted at source, even though this is tax that has never been
paid over to HMRC under the PAYE rules and is instead in the individual’s possession.
S684(7A)(b) states the payer need not comply with the PAYE regulations where an officer of
HMRC is satisfied that it is unnecessary or not appropriate for the payer to do so.
If an officer of HMRC is satisfied that the payer need not comply with PAYE and
exercises discretion under s684(7A)(b) we will seek to collect the tax from the
individual. This means that the taxpayer is not entitled to have an amount treated as
tax deducted at source in respect of the employment income. The officer must consider
all the facts and available evidence when making a decision
The decision making process should be recorded for audit trail purposes and needs to include all
facts, relevant information considered as well as any assumptions being made.
It is not sufficient to simply consider that because an avoidance scheme has been used and
tax underpaid that it would be appropriate to disapply the PAYE regulations in order to
collect the unpaid tax from the taxpayer.
--- PDF page 6 ---
6
Section 3 (a) - Section 684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 'PAYE regulations' and
offshore contractor loans schemes: The circumstances where we will
consider using s684(7A) (b) in contractor loans cases when the scheme
has been used to 5 April 2014
In considering whether to use the discretion HMRC officers must consider all relevant facts and this
guidance.
Where an offshore contractor loans scheme has been used up to 5 April 2014, the following
criteria need to be met if HMRC is to consider exercising the discretion provided by
s684(7A)(b):
•
The taxpayer has used a contractor loans scheme involving an offshore employer or
offshore entity, and
•
The amounts received by the taxpayer may be taxable as employment income and, as
a consequence, the PAYE Regulations may apply, and
•
HMRC has reason to believe the End Client would not have been aware of or involved
in the tax avoidance scheme
HMRC does not need to know the identity of the End Client to be able to use the power
provided by s684(7A)(b), provided HMRC has sufficient information about the way the
scheme operates so that it is reasonable to conclude that the End Client was unaware of and
not complicit in the avoidance arrangements.
It is not necessary to test the actual motivation and knowledge of entities/persons that HMRC
does not know of, have ceased to exist, or where the evidence HMRC has and HMRC’s
knowledge of the facts and surrounding circumstances are such, that it reasonably
demonstrates an End Client exercising reasonable due diligence could not have been aware
that they were required to operate PAYE.
Where HMRC will not exercise the discretionary power provided by s684(7A)(b)
HMRC will not generally use the discretion where:
1. HMRC possesses evidence that either:
a. the End Client was aware that the taxpayer was using an avoidance scheme with an
offshore employer, or
b. reasonable due diligence by the End Client should have meant that they were aware that
the taxpayer was using an avoidance scheme with an offshore employer
2. HMRC is aware the taxpayer is a company director of the End Client
It is not sufficient to simply consider that because an avoidance scheme has been used and
tax underpaid that it would be appropriate to disapply the PAYE regulations in order to
collect the unpaid tax from the taxpayer.
For scheme usages which span the two periods before and after 6 April 2014 (same scheme,
same fact pattern) an officer needs to consider the usages separately and apply the different
tests independently when making a decision on whether to use the discretion.
--- PDF page 7 ---
7
Section 3(b)- Section 684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 'PAYE regulations' and offshore
contractor loans schemes: The circumstances where we will consider using
s684(7A) (b)in contractor loans cases when the scheme has been used on or
after 6 April 2014
In considering whether to use the discretion HMRC officers must consider all relevant facts
and this guidance.
Where an offshore contractor loan scheme has been used, the following criteria need to be
met if HMRC is to consider exercising the discretion provided by s684(7A)(b) from 6 April 2014
onwards:
•
The taxpayer has used a contractor loans scheme involving an offshore employer, and
•
The amounts received by the taxpayer may be taxable as employment income and, as
a consequence, the PAYE Regulations may apply, and
•
An HMRC officer considers it is reasonable to conclude that the UK agency could not
have known about its obligation to operate PAYE because of the way a DR scheme
was set up and operated. The officer needs to consider whether it is reasonable to
conclude that the UK agency placing a contractor using a specific scheme, with an End
Client, would have concluded that PAYE was being operated elsewhere in the supply
chain, or that there was no offshore employer involved, and therefore it would not be
required to operate PAYE under s689 ITEPA.
HMRC does not need to know the identity of the UK Agency to be able to use the power
provided by s684(7A) (b), provided HMRC has sufficient information about the way the
scheme operates so that it is reasonable to conclude that the UK Agency after carrying out
due diligence would have concluded that PAYE was being operated elsewhere in the supply
chain (for usages from 6 April 2014 onwards).
It is not necessary to test the actual motivation and knowledge of entities/persons that HMRC
does not know of, have ceased to exist, or where the evidence HMRC has and HMRC’s
knowledge of the facts and surrounding circumstances are such, that it reasonably
demonstrates that the UK Agency exercising reasonable due diligence could not have been
aware that it was required to operate PAYE.
Where HMRC will not exercise the discretionary power provided by s684(7A)(b)
HMRC will not generally use the discretion where:
1. HMRC possesses evidence that either:
a. the UK Agency was aware of its obligation to operate PAYE or
b. the UK Agency was aware that no PAYE had been operated in the supply chain, or that
there was an offshore entity making the payments and the responsibility to operate PAYE by
virtue of s689 ITEPA would fall on the UK Agency
2. HMRC is aware the taxpayer is a company director of the UK Agency.
--- PDF page 8 ---
8
It is not sufficient to simply consider that because an avoidance scheme has been used and
tax underpaid that it would be appropriate to disapply the PAYE regulations in order to
collect the unpaid tax from the taxpayer.
For scheme usages which span over two periods before and after 6 April 2014(same scheme,
same fact pattern) an officer needs to consider the usages separately and apply the different
tests independently when making a decision on whether to use the discretion.
--- PDF page 9 ---
9
Section 4 (a) - Section 684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 ‘PAYE regulations’ and
offshore contractor loans schemes: How use of s684(7A)(b) will work in
practice where HMRC has/intends to issue an assessment to protect the
tax due from use of a contractor loans scheme, or has an open
enquiry when the scheme has been used up to 5 April 2014
The officer should check the individual taxpayer’s customer record to see what information
HMRC has on file, or has obtained through investigating their use of the scheme to help them
determine whether:
1. HMRC has sufficient information about how the scheme operated in order to
determine that the scheme is a contractor loans scheme involving an offshore entity
and that the End Client might be liable to comply with the PAYE regulations in relation
to the taxpayer’s employment income;
2. It is reasonable to conclude that the End Client was not party to the scheme, did not
know that the taxpayer was using the scheme to avoid tax on payments arising from
the services carried out for the End Client and would not have known about the
requirement to operate PAYE as a result of undertaking reasonable due diligence
checks; or
3. The taxpayer is, or immediately before joining the scheme was, a company director of
the company to which they are providing services (the End Client)
As a guide, the following factors might be relevant in determining whether or not it is reasonable to
conclude that the End Client was not party to or aware of the tax avoidance:
•
the existence of a UK intermediary independent of the agency or employer undertaking
‘typical’ intermediary activities e.g. payroll support/ invoicing functions. It is reasonable to
consider, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the intermediary can only supply
the End Client with information relating to its functions/ services that it provides. The
intermediary is the person that the End Client typically has the contractual relationship with
and, in consequence, one of the persons towards whom due diligence enquiries should be
directed. It may be reasonable to conclude, on the evidence HMRC has, that the
intermediary cannot pass to the End Client any information on the arrangements as a whole
and this will impact on the effectiveness of any due diligence enquiries undertaken by the
End Client/intermediary;
•
any connection (such as common directorship or shareholding) between the End Client and
the scheme employer, promoter, or other scheme entity which could indicate awareness of
or complicity in the scheme;
•
any stipulation on the part of the End Client that the taxpayer must provide his/her services
via this structure, which might indicate a common interest in obtaining tax advantages from
the arrangements. This may support an officer in taking the view that, whatever responses
were received from due diligence enquiries, the taxpayer had no choice other than to use
arrangements.
The officer should consider all the facts and available evidence when making a decision; the above
lists are not exhaustive.
--- PDF page 10 ---
10
Having established the facts it will be for the officer to take a view as to whether it is appropriate to
consider using s684(7A)(b) to determine that the End Client does not have to comply with the PAYE
regulations. This view must be based on the particular circumstances of the case.
The officer must produce a written summary of the scheme and the individual circumstances of the
scheme use and set out their view on the appropriateness of using s684(7A)(b) based on the
evidence available.
Where the officer is below G7 this summary should be submitted to a C-A officer of at least G7 for
consideration. That officer will consider the submission alongside this guidance and decide whether
to approve or reject use of s684(7A)(b) or that further evidence/enquiry is required. This decision
must be recorded in writing.
An HMRC officer of G7 or higher grade making the decision on s684(7A)(b) does not need additional
approval for their decision but must still complete the written summary required above.
--- PDF page 11 ---
11
Section 4 (b) - Section 684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 ‘PAYE regulations’ and offshore
contractor loans schemes: How use of s684(7A)(b) will work in practice where
HMRC has/intends to issue an assessment to protect the tax due from use of
a contractor loans scheme, or has an open enquiry when the scheme has
been used on or after 6 April 2014
The officer should check the individual taxpayer’s customer record to see what information HMRC
has on file, or has obtained through investigating their use of the scheme to help them determine
whether:
1. HMRC has sufficient information about how the scheme operated in order to determine that
the scheme is a contractor loans scheme involving an offshore entity and that the entity that
contracts directly with the End Client (usually the UK Agency) might be liable to comply with
the PAYE regulations in relation to the taxpayer’s employment income.
2. It is reasonable to conclude that the UK Agency could not have known about their obligation
to operate PAYE because of the way a DR scheme was set up and operated. The officer
should consider whether it is reasonable to conclude that the UK agency placing a contractor
using a specific scheme, with an end client, would have concluded that PAYE was being
operated elsewhere in the supply chain or that there was an offshore employer involved,
and therefore they would be required to operate PAYE under s689 ITEPA.
3. The taxpayer is, or immediately before joining the scheme was, a company director of the
entity that contracts directly with the End Client (usually the UK Agency).
As a guide, the following factors might be relevant in determining whether or not it is reasonable to
conclude that the UK Agency placing a contractor with an End Client could not have known about
their obligation to operate PAYE:
•
the presence of a UK ‘front’ intermediary who contracts with the UK agency has set up
separate UK bank accounts for all the different offshore employers they will invoice for.
•
Any correspondence or promotional material that suggests that the UK Agency has been led
to believe that PAYE was operated elsewhere in the supply chain.
•
Other factors which might be relevant to determine whether it is reasonable to conclude
that the UK Agency could not have known about their obligation to operate PAYE may
include the involvement of a particular promoter of the avoidance scheme and any tax
advice obtained.
It is possible that that there may be a connection (such as common directorship or shareholding)
between the UK agency and the scheme employer, promoter, or other scheme entity which could
indicate awareness of or complicity in the scheme. If so, then the officer may conclude that the
agency should have known about and complied with their PAYE obligations and therefore it may be
inappropriate to exercise discretion.
The officer should consider all the facts and available evidence when making a decision; the above
lists are not exhaustive.
Having established the facts it will be for the officer to take a view as to whether it is appropriate to
consider using s684(7A)(b) to determine that the UK Agency does not have to comply with the PAYE
regulations. This view must be based on the particular circumstances of the case.
The officer must produce a written summary of the scheme and the individual circumstances of the
scheme use and set out their view on the appropriateness of using s684(7A)(b) based on the
evidence available.
--- PDF page 12 ---
12
Where the officer is below G7 this summary should be submitted to a C-A officer of at least G7 for
consideration. That officer will consider the submission alongside this guidance and decide whether
to approve or reject use of s684(7A)(b) or that further evidence/enquiry is required. This decision
must be recorded in writing.
An HMRC officer of G7 or higher grade making the decision on s684(7A)(b) does not need additional
approval for their decision but must still complete the written summary required above.
Please note that these sections are intended to be read as a whole. Before any decision or
approval is made under Section 4 (a), (b) or (1) the officer making the decision must have read and
understood the entirety of Sections 1-10.
--- PDF page 13 ---
13
Section 4 (1) – Section 684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 ‘PAYE Regulations’
and offshore contractor loan schemes: How use of s684(7A)(b)
will work in practice where HMRC has/intends to issue an
assessment to protect the tax due from use of a contractor
loans scheme, or has an open enquiry - group decisions
Some offshore contractor loans schemes are used in very similar ways by large
numbers of contractors. These schemes are not generally used by contractors who
are also company directors of relevant End Clients or UK Agencies.
Where multiple customers have used the same contractor loans scheme it may be appropriate to
group those customers and make a group decision about exercise of discretion, in respect of their
usages.
In these circumstances, a Counter Avoidance G7 officer should review and consider all the
information and available evidence we hold on the scheme to determine whether it is appropriate to
group the customers and how customers within the group can be identified.
Once that group has been established, the G7 officer should determine whether exercise of
discretion at S684(7a)(b) is appropriate for all customers within that group.
The decision will be based on our understanding of the scheme and whether the conditions in Steps
4 (a) and (b) (as appropriate) are satisfied. The officer should consider all facts and available
evidence when making a decision, the lists contained in the previous sections are not exhaustive.
For scheme usages which span over two periods before and after 6 April 2014 the G7 officer
needs to consider the usages separately and apply the different tests independently when
making a decision on whether to use the discretion.
The G7 officer should produce a scheme summary that shows the current understanding of the
scheme and record their decision on whether it is appropriate to group the customers and to
exercise discretion for all customers in that group, once that group has been established.
The G7 officer should select a meaningful sample of randomly selected customer records to be
individually reviewed, in conjunction with this guidance and the overall scheme summary prepared.
Deciding the size of the sample will depend on various factors and may vary for different groups. For
example, for schemes that have been used by many customers, a sample no smaller than 5% of all
customers in the proposed group may be appropriate. For schemes used by a small number of
customers, it may be appropriate to review a higher proportion or all of the customers in the
proposed group.
For scheme usages which span before and after 6 April 2014 separate samples may be appropriate.
The G7 officer should keep a record of the factors that they took into consideration when deciding
on a meaningful sample size for individual customer records to be reviewed.
Within the defined sample an officer should review the individual customer records and any
information and documents we hold on file or we have obtained through investigating their use of
the scheme, ensure the customer fits the criteria for being part of the group as already defined and
decided by the G7 officer and along with the overall scheme summary and the current guidance to
decide whether it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in respect of that customer.
--- PDF page 14 ---
14
The officer must produce a written summary for each customer review and record their view as to
whether it is appropriate to exercise discretion in respect of that customer and whether that
customer falls within the established group parameters.
Where the officer is below G7, the customer summary and the view of discretion must be submitted
to a C-A officer of at least G7 for consideration.
Where an individual review shows that use of the discretion under s684(7A)(b) is not appropriate,
the G7 considering the group as whole should consider whether this review would affect a
decision to group customers and to exercise discretion for all customers in that group.
The G7 officer should consider all information and evidence available from the individual reviews
and the scheme summary, produce a record of their findings, their view and make a decision about
whether it is appropriate to group the customers and to exercise discretion for all customers in
that group.
An HMRC officer of G7 or higher grade making this decision does not need additional approval for
their decision but must still record their decision.
The officer should inform the taxpayer in writing that HMRC is exercising its discretion under
s684(7A)(b) to decide that the End Client or the UK Agency need not comply with the PAYE
regulations for the tax year(s) in question. If the customer provides evidence that shows that their
circumstances appear inconsistent with the fact patterns found in the sample reviews and reported
in the overall summary, then the case should be considered individually. If the evidence provided
shows that the End Client had knowledge or was party of the scheme (when the scheme has been
used up to 5 April 2014), or the UK Agency was aware of the fact that no one else in the supply chain
was operating PAYE (when the scheme has been used from 6 April 2014 onwards), a G7 officer
should consider whether this review will alter the decision to group customers and to exercise
discretion for all customers in that group, once that group has been established.
Every stage of the decision making process should be recorded for audit trail purposes and needs
to include all facts, relevant information considered as well as any assumptions being made.
It is not sufficient to simply consider that because an avoidance scheme has been used and tax
underpaid that it would be appropriate to disapply the PAYE regulations for a group of customers,
in order to collect the unpaid tax from them.
If you are considering using the discretion for a group of customers and need advice, please refer to
C-A Operational Policy team.
Next steps where approval has been given for s684(7A)(b) to be exercised are covered Section 6.
--- PDF page 15 ---
15
Section 5 - S684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 'PAYE regulations' and contractor loans
schemes: Insufficient information about the scheme
If the G7 or higher grade C-A officer concludes that HMRC does not have sufficient evidence about
how the scheme operated to determine that the scheme has the key features and to make a
decision about use of s684(7A)(b), discretion should not be exercised at this time and C-A should
instead investigate the scheme further.
HMRC may sometimes need to consider use of s684(7A)(b) before completing the requisite
general fact finding about how the scheme works, for example because of customer-driven
litigation. A G7 or higher grade C-A officer should refer all of the facts as HMRC knows them to
C-A Operational Policy for advice before a decision is made about whether or not they should
exercise s684(7A)(b) in such circumstances.
--- PDF page 16 ---
16
Section 6 - S684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 'PAYE regulations' and contractor loans
schemes: Where approval has been given for s684(7A)(b) to be exercised
The officer should inform the taxpayer in writing that HMRC believes the amounts received are
taxable as employment income. The officer should explain that HMRC is exercising its
discretion under s684(7A)(b) to decide that the End Client or the UK Agency need not comply
with the PAYE regulations for the tax year or years in question. The written notification should
explain that, as a consequence of using s684(7A)(b) the taxpayer needs to pay the full amount
of their tax liability, and that the customer is not entitled to an amount treated as tax deducted
at source.
The written notification (the decision letter) should be suitably adapted where the discretion
under s684(7A)(b) is being exercised on a contingent basis, for example in cases where HMRC
is challenging that a deemed employment applies, and the discretion is being applied
contingent upon the taxpayer’s view prevailing at Tribunal.
For usages up to 5 April 2014 the decision letter should invite the contractor to make written
representations if they consider they have information that will affect the decisionmaker’s
decision to exercise the discretion under s684(7A)(b) and they have evidence that the End
Clients were aware of or party to the avoidance usage or that that were aware that they are
obliged to account for any tax due to HMRC in respect of the income they have received
through using the avoidance scheme.
For usages on or after 6 April 2014 the decision letter should invite the contractor to make written
representations if they consider that they have information that will affect the decisionmaker’s
decision to exercise the discretion under s684(7A)(b) and they have evidence that the UK Agency
would have concluded that PAYE was being operated elsewhere in the supply chain, or that there is
an offshore employer involved.
The officer should take account of any representations the taxpayer makes about this decision
and should review the case further if the taxpayer provides additional facts or evidence which
might impact on the appropriateness or otherwise of using s684(7A)(b), seeking advice from a
G7 or higher grade colleague if necessary.
--- PDF page 17 ---
17
Section 7- S684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 'PAYE regulations' and contractor
loans schemes: S684(7A)(b) and Regulation 80
While HMRC regularly litigates on alternative bases, using s684(7A)(b) and Regulation 80
determinations in relation to the same income may lead to uncertainty over who HMRC
intends to recover tax from and uncertainty about how HMRC views compliance with the PAYE
regulations.
HMRC may wish to consider issuing Regulation 80 determinations in the alternative after a
decision has been made to exercise the s684(7A)(b) discretion, particularly when a case is
expected to lead to litigation, where the End Client’s identity or the UK Agency’s identity is
known or could easily be discovered, and if it is considered appropriate to protect the
Exchequer in the event of a Court disagreeing with HMRC’s use of s684(7A) (b). This should be
considered on a case by case basis. Details of the case should be referred to C-A Operational
Policy Team who will consider whether it is appropriate to issue a Regulation 80
determination.
HMRC may also wish to consider exercising the s684(7A)(b) discretion in the alternative when
a Regulation 80 determination has been issued, if it is considered appropriate to protect the
Exchequer. This should be considered on a case by case basis. Details of the case should be
referred to C-A Operational Policy Team and a decision should be made about whether it is
appropriate to exercise the s684(7A)(b) discretion.
Officers should follow the normal guidance if they are considering issuing a Regulation 80
determination when s684(7A)(b) is not in point.
--- PDF page 18 ---
18
Section 8 - S684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 ‘PAYE regulations’ and CL schemes:
How use of s684(7A)(b) will work where there is a closed enquiry or an
assessment has been issued to protect the tax due from use of a
contractor loans scheme and the decision is under appeal
Where a case is already in litigation or litigation is considered to be likely, the officer should give the
taxpayer written notification at the earliest possible stage after approval has been given to use
s684(7A)(b). If the case is already in litigation, SOLS should be consulted before this notification is
given.
An officer in C-A will review cases to determine whether s684(7A)(b) should be exercised at an
appropriate point before the taxpayer’s appeal is heard by the Tribunal or a view of the matter
letter is to be issued to the taxpayer. Sometimes earlier consideration of s684(7A)(b) might be
appropriate, for example if the taxpayer seeks to agree a contract settlement on the basis that
the income they received through the scheme is PAYE income, so they are entitled to have an
amount treated as deducted at source in respect of that taxable income. HMRC would then
need to confirm to the taxpayer whether they will be entitled to have an amount treated as
deducted at source.
In this situation the officer should then follow the same consideration process, set out in
Sections 4 (a), (b) and (1) including the review by a G7 or higher grade officer. The colleague
should reject or approve use of s684(7A)(b) based on the Sections 4 (a), (b) and (1) criteria and
notify their decision to the officer. The officer should then issue a written confirmation to the
taxpayer of whether they will be entitled to have an amount treated as deducted at source in
respect of that taxable income.
--- PDF page 19 ---
19
Section 9- S684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 'PAYE regulations' and contractor
loans schemes: Finalising the tax
Where the appeal and the tax liability are decided in HMRC’s favour, HMRC will finalise
the assessment and collect the tax directly from the individual. HMRC will vacate any regulation 80
determination to the extent that it covers the same liability.
Where the appeal is decided in the taxpayer’s favour, HMRC will adjust the assessment as
necessary and if appropriate, seek to enforce any Regulation 80 determination.
--- PDF page 20 ---
20
Section 10 - S684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 and contractor loans schemes:
Illustrative examples of possible scenarios where HMRC may consider using
s684(7A) (b)
Example 1
Mrs A used a contractor loans scheme with an offshore employer during the 2011/2012
tax year. She worked for ABC Ltd (the End Client) who is based in the UK. Mrs A included
a small amount of the income paid to her by the offshore employer as earnings from her
employment in her 2011/2012 ITSA return, on which her employer voluntarily operated
PAYE, but the majority of the income paid to her was not included in her ITSA return as
these amounts were paid by way of a loan. HMRC opened an enquiry under section 9A
TMA70 within the statutory time limit and it remains open. A caseworker in C-A intends
to issue a closure notice. The caseworker reviews what HMRC knows about the scheme
and Mrs A’s use of the scheme.
The scheme involves an offshore employer and there are two UK resident intermediaries
(one a company connected with the scheme promoter purportedly functioning as an
umbrella company and the other an unconnected recruitment agency) between the
offshore employer and the End Client. The End Client contracts with the recruitment
agency and is not connected with Mrs A, Mrs A’s employer or the intermediaries. There is
no evidence that the End Client knew sums paid to the recruitment agency would be
routed offshore and paid to Mrs A without deduction of tax. It is clear that Mrs A has
never been a company director and the caseworker is satisfied that Mrs A should be
taxable on additional employment income.
The caseworker concludes that it is not appropriate for the End Clients to comply with the
PAYE regulations. The caseworker writes a summary of the facts and evidence considered
and passes this to a G7 or higher grade colleague in Counter-Avoidance. The colleague is
satisfied that the guidance has been followed and the evidence presented supports the
case to use the discretion. The colleague approves use of s684(7A)(b).
The caseworker provides written notification to Mrs A so that she knows that she is liable
for the tax in respect of the undeclared employment income she received and there is no
entitlement to have an amount treated as tax deducted at source in respect of that
taxable income. As a consequence, Mrs A needs to pay the full amount of her tax
liability.
Example 2
The facts are as above but there is no open enquiry. HMRC issued Mrs A with an
assessment in 2015, on the basis that Mrs A is taxable on additional employment
income. Mrs A appealed the assessment to HMRC. She now tells the caseworker that she
wants to notify her appeal to the First Tier Tax Tribunal. The caseworker reviews what
HMRC knows about the scheme and reviews Mrs A’s customer record.
The caseworker completes the required checks and concludes that it is not appropriate
for the End Client to comply with the PAYE regulations. The caseworker writes a summary
of the facts and evidence considered and passes this to a G7 or higher grade colleague in
Counter-Avoidance. The colleague is satisfied that the guidance has been followed and
the evidence presented supports the case to use the discretion. The colleague approves
use of s684(7A)(b).
--- PDF page 21 ---
21
The caseworker sends Mrs A a letter explaining that HMRC is exercising its discretion
under s684(7A)(b) and there is no entitlement to have an amount treated as tax deducted
at source in respect of that taxable income. As a consequence, Mrs A needs to pay the
full amount of her tax liability.
The caseworker subsequently sends a view of the matter letter explaining HMRC’s
position and offering a review of their decision, however this review can only relate to the
assessment and cannot extend to the exercise of the discretion under s684(7A)(b), as any
challenge of the decision to exercise of this discretion would be by way of judicial review.
Example 3
Mr B used a contractor loans scheme with an offshore employer. He worked for XYZ Ltd
who are based in the UK. Mr B included a small amount of the income paid to him by the
offshore employer as earnings from his employment in his ITSA return, on which his
employer voluntarily operated PAYE, but the majority of the income paid to him was not
included in his ITSA return as these amounts were paid by way of a loan. HMRC opened an
enquiry and it remains open. The caseworker reviews what HMRC knows about the
scheme and reviews Mr B’s customer record.
Mr B was a company director of XYZ Ltd before he used the contractor loans scheme. It is
therefore reasonable to assume that XYZ Ltd should have known about the change in Mr
B’s circumstances and that there was an avoidance scheme which resulted in sums
derived from XYZ Ltd’s payments for Mr B’s services being paid to him without deduction
of tax.
The caseworker concludes it is not a suitable case in which to exercise discretion so XYZ
Ltd must account for the unpaid PAYE tax.
Example 4
Mr C used a contractor loans scheme with an offshore employer in the 2012/13 tax year
and received his remuneration in payments from an offshore trust. Mr C included a small
amount of the income paid to him by the offshore employer as earnings from his
employment in his ITSA return, on which his employer voluntarily operated PAYE, but the
majority of the income paid to him was not included in his ITSA return as these amounts
were paid by way of a loan. HMRC opened an enquiry and it remains open. A caseworker
in C-A intends to issue a closure notice. The caseworker reviews what HMRC knows about
the scheme and Mr C’s use of the scheme.
Mr C has explained in correspondence that he worked for a number of End Clients who
are based in the UK. He no longer has full records of the contracts but recalls these
typically lasted between 2 days and 4 weeks and he didn’t generally work for the same
End Client more than once. HMRC is not aware of the identity of all of the End Clients to
whom Mr C provided services. The caseworker knows that Mr C has never been a
company director. It is clear that from scheme marketing material that the avoidance
scheme was intended to reduce Mr C’s tax bill.
The End Clients contracted with intermediaries for Mr C’s services and there is no
evidence that the End Clients knew about the tax avoidance.
The caseworker is satisfied that the payments for Mr C’s services could be taxable as
employment income. The caseworker concludes that it is not appropriate for the End
Clients to comply with the PAYE regulations. The caseworker writes a summary of the
--- PDF page 22 ---
22
facts and evidence considered and passes this to a G7 or higher grade colleague in C-
A. The colleague is satisfied that the guidance has been followed and the evidence
presented supports the case to use the discretion. The colleague approves use of
s684(7A)(b).
The caseworker provides written notification to Mr C so that he knows that he is liable for
the tax in respect of the payments made by his employer and there is no entitlement to
have an amount treated as tax deducted at source in respect of that taxable income. As a
consequence, Mr C needs to pay the full amount of his tax liability.
Example 5
Mr D was registered with HMRC as self-employed and used a contractor loans scheme in
the 2010/2011 tax year involving an offshore entity, through which he provided his
services to DEF Ltd (the End Client), who is based in the UK. Mr D included a small
amount of the income paid to him by the offshore entity as trading profits from his self-
employment in his 2010/2011 ITSA return, but the majority of the income paid to him was
not included in his ITSA return as these amounts were paid by way of a loan. HMRC
opened an enquiry under section 9A TMA and it remains open. A caseworker in Counter-
Avoidance intends to issue a closure notice. The caseworker reviews what HMRC knows
about the scheme and Mr D’s use of the scheme.
The scheme involves an offshore entity and there are two UK intermediaries between the
offshore entity and the End Client. Mr D filed his tax return for 2010/2011 on the basis
that his taxable income for the year was the profits of a trade, in respect of which he
ultimately provided his services to DEF Ltd.
The caseworker is satisfied that the total amount received by Mr D for his services,
including the amounts paid by way of a loan, are in reality business income for the
purpose of determining the amount taxable as profits of this trade.
Mr D has recently indicated that he now believes the offshore entity was an agency within
the provisions of section 44 ITEPA 2003. If this is correct, this would mean the amounts he
received for his services would be employment income, in respect of which the End Client
may have been liable to operate PAYE under s689 ITEPA 2003. As such he will be entitled
to have an amount treated as tax deducted at source in respect of that taxable income.
HMRC doesn’t accept Mr D’s view but if he were correct would need to consider whether
he would be entitled to have an amount treated as tax deducted at source. Although any
entitlement to have an amount treated as tax deducted at source would not affect the
amounts to be included in the amendment to his return, as this should only include
amounts actually deducted, any amount treated as deducted at source would need to be
considered during collection of the amounts due once any appeal was determined.
The caseworker reviews the case and takes into consideration that DEF Ltd contracts with
a UK intermediary. DEF Ltd is not connected with Mr D, the offshore entity or the two UK
intermediaries in the chain. It is clear that Mr D has never been a company director of
DEF Ltd and there is no evidence that DEF Ltd knew sums paid to the UK intermediary
they contracted with would be routed offshore and end up being paid to Mr D without
deduction of tax. The caseworker concludes that if section 44 ITEPA 2003 applies, it is not
appropriate for the End Client to comply with the PAYE regulations.
The caseworker writes a summary of the facts and evidence considered and passes this to
a G7 or higher grade colleague in Counter Avoidance. The colleague is satisfied that the
--- PDF page 23 ---
23
guidance has been followed and the evidence presented supports the case to use the
discretion. The colleague approves use of s684(7A)(b).
The caseworker provides written notification to Mr D so that he knows that if the
amounts paid for his services are taxable as employment income, there is no entitlement
to have an amount treated as tax deducted at source in respect of that taxable
income. As a consequence, Mr D needs to pay the full amount of his tax liability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: 230411_FOI2023_16081_FINAL.pdf
TEXT_FILE: 230411_FOI2023_16081_FINAL.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- PDF page 1 ---
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Freedom of Information Team
S1715
6 Floor
Central Mail Unit
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE98 1ZZ
Trevor Stearn
By email: request-958331-
45e8ae2b@whatdotheyknow.com
Email
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 11 April 2023
Our ref:
FOI2023/16081
Dear Trevor Stearn
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your request, which was received on 9 March, for the following information:
“HMRC has published a list of internal guidance manuals which are not publicly available.
One of these is the above manual termed the Avoidance Handling Process manual or AHP
manual.
This manual was updated 29 March 2021 and the next update was due to be done by the 18
December 2022.
This is a request for HMRC to confirm the date of their latest update to this manual post 29
March 2021 and if updated to please provide the following information.
This is a request for HMRC to publish the changes made to the 29 March 2021 version of
this manual included within the December 18 2022 version and/or latest update.
If there are valid reasons for HMRC not sharing all of the most recent amendments, please
share the amended sections from the most recent updated version of the manual that relate
to the terms "ITEPA 2003, s684(7A)(b), PAYE regulations, contractor loan schemes, self-
employment and offshore.”
I note from FOI 2022/17647 that HMRC published the complete relevant sections of the 29
March 2021 AHP manual.”
We can confirm we hold the information you seek, but it is being withheld under section
22(1) of the FOIA. Section 22 provides an exemption for information that is intended to be
published in the future.
Information is exempt if, at the time when the public authority receives a request for it:
the public authority holds the requested information;
the public authority intends the information to be published at some future date,
whether that date is determined or not; and
in all the circumstances it is reasonable to withhold the information until its planned
publication.
If you need extra support, for example if you have a disability, a mental health condition, or
do not speak English/Welsh, go to www.gov.uk and search for ‘get help from HMRC’.
Text Relay service prefix number – 18001
--- PDF page 2 ---
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
We are in the process of updating the Avoidance Handling Process Manual to improve
clarity and ensure it is up to date. The department intends to publish the Avoidance Handling
Process manual, on GOV.UK by the end of June 2023.
It is reasonable to allow authorities, within reason, to determine their own publication
timetable to accommodate the necessary preparation and administration involved in
publication.
Whilst there is a clear public interest in government departments being as open and
transparent as possible to increase accountability and inform public debate, it is also in the
public interest that authorities can plan publication activity to ensure the best use of public
resources.
Premature disclosure could undermine any relevant pre-publication procedures, such as
consultation with or pre-disclosure to particular bodies.
Taking these factors into account, we consider that, on balance, the public interest in
withholding the information within scope of your request until the planned publication date
outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.
We note your specific interest in guidance relating to ITEPA 2003, s684(7A)(b). We consider
that to disclose this information at this time would not affect the department’s planned
publication processes. Accordingly, it has been provided as an annex to this letter.
If you are not satisfied with our reply, you may request a review within 40 working days of
receiving this letter by emailing foi.review@hmrc.gov.uk or by writing to our address at the
top.
If you are not content with the outcome of our internal review you can complain to the
Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
HM Revenue and Customs
2