Loan Charge and Loan Charge Settlement statistics
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
You have previously only provided estimates on the number of people impacted by the Loan Charge. Since then, your awareness of the numbers of those individuals and companies impacted by the Loan Charge must now have confirmed those initial estimates, or have alternatively culminated in you amending your associated figures and statistics for those impacted due to those earlier estimates being found to be inaccurate.
Please could you therefore provide accurate and up-to-date (i.e. as at today's date) statistics for the following questions:
1. Exactly how many a) individuals and b) companies are impacted by the Loan Charge? For the purposes of this question, please treat anyone working via their own PSC or Limited Company as an individual.
2. Exactly how many individuals have registered with HMRC for settlement?
3. Exactly how many of those individuals from Question 2 have signed and returned the acceptance of that settlement 'offer' and what precisely is the total revenue due to be raised as a result of settlements from these individuals?
4. Exactly how many individuals remain in settlement discussions with HMRC and what precisely is the total revenue anticipated should they subsequently accept the 'offer' and sign and return the settlement form?
5. Exactly how many a) individuals and b) companies that HMRC believe are impacted by the Loan Charge have not yet come forward to engage in settlement discussions?
I would appreciate your timely response.
Yours faithfully,
F Thompson
Our ref: FOI2020/01610
Dear F. Thompson,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement
Thank you for your communication of 7th September which has been passed to
HMRC's Freedom of Information Team.
We have allocated the above reference which you should quote if you need
to contact us.
The Team will arrange for a reply to be sent to you which will either
comply with HMRC's obligations under Freedom of Information Act or, if we
think it's an enquiry that we don't need to address under the terms of the
Act, let you know why. If it is the latter we will, if possible, pass it
on to a more appropriate part of the Department 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
Dear Mr Thompson
We are writing in response to your request for information, received on 7
September2020.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Freedom of Information Team
Dear HM Revenue and Customs FOI Team,
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 'Loan Charge and Loan Charge Settlement statistics'.
Thank you for your reply dated 05 October.
Unfortunately, it appears that, rather than providing accurate answers to my FOI inquiries, you have simply referenced previously published 'estimates' once again instead of the exact figures I politely requested, or have refused the request. I have therefore summarised my own response for each of those questions below:
Q1: You repeat the ESTIMATE that there are 50,000 individuals affected, despite my clear request for an EXACT figure based on the Loan Charge-related work you have obviously been focused on since that initial estimate was published. Do you STILL not have a clear and accurate insight into the exact numbers of individuals affected?
You also include another estimated figure, already previously published as part of the Morse report in December 2019, of 11,000 individuals whom have apparently been removed from the scope of the Loan Charge following this review - information which has been readily available in the public domain now for over ten months.
You have also included approximations related to settlements for both individuals and employers instead of accurate, up-to-date numbers as requested - again, these figures have been simply lifted from the same ten-month old report, clearly demonstrating that you have expended very little effort on my request for the ACTUAL data.
The only conclusion which can be reached from your response to this first question is that, since December 2019 when the Morse report was published and communicated to all interested parties, you have failed to analyse or record any changes or updates to these initial estimates and you either have no idea of the numbers involved or you are refusing to reveal them in response to a legitimate request - which is it? Your assertion that you 'expect' to publish information on the settlements agreed later in the year is clearly not an avowed commitment to do so - I therefore request an internal review to re-evaluate the specific question I asked and your subsequent (unacceptable) response.
Q2: For this question, you seem to have selected to provide statistics as at 05 April 2019 instead of CURRENT figures as clearly requested - yet, earlier in your response, you state that 'we have interpreted your request as seeking information as at 7 September 2020 (the date of your email to us)'. Again, this would suggest that you either have not analysed or recorded changes to these numbers since April 2019, or you do not wish to share them. I therefore request an internal review to re-evaluate the specific question I asked and your subsequent (unacceptable) response.
Q3: You have refused this question under section 12(1) of the FOIA, thereby implying that any effort in providing this information would exceed what is considered an 'appropriate' limit. This refusal suggests that the internal team(s) responsible for reviewing, collating and recording these settlements have absolutely no method of maintaining a 'snapshot' view of those which have been completed and those which might remain outstanding on any particular date. Given the routine reporting requirements associated with any large public body or government department and the numerous digital platforms and application databases utilised within HMRC, I find it difficult to accept that these figures are not readily available for the purposes of those aforementioned demands. I therefore request an internal review to re-evaluate the specific question I asked and your subsequent (unacceptable) response.
Q4: You have also refused this question under section 12(1) of the FOIA, thereby implying that any effort in providing this information would exceed what is considered an 'appropriate' limit. This refusal suggests that the internal team(s) responsible for reviewing, collating and recording these settlements have absolutely no method of maintaining a 'snapshot' view of those which remain in discussion(s) and are still in process on any particular date. I note that you also offer a view on your inability to establish any 'expected' revenue prior to any agreement between both parties, yet the public are continuously informed that there is no possible deviation from the published settlement terms - so how can you not provide a clear and accurate figure of what you believe someone's liability (as part of the only settlement terms apparently available) would therefore amount to? You have been very clear in your public communications that there is an anticipated yield of £3.2 billion from the proceeds of this retrospective DR legislation, so how does that clear figure align with your refusal in this instance if you cannot EVIDENCE this expected revenue? Again, given the routine reporting requirements associated with any large public body or government department and the numerous digital platforms and application databases utilised within HMRC, I find it difficult to accept that these figures are not readily available for the purposes of those aforementioned demands. I therefore request an internal review to re-evaluate the specific question I asked and your subsequent (unacceptable) response.
Q5: You have also refused this question under section 12(1) of the FOIA, thereby implying that any effort in providing this information would exceed what is considered an 'appropriate' limit. You have justified this by referencing the refusals in Q3 and Q4, yet I would conclude this information could easily be provided by a simple mathematical exercise related to Q1 (the exact amount of individuals and companies affected by the Loan Charge - which you have not yet provided) and the information which you must already hold on all those who have already settled (Q3) and those who remain in discussion (Q4). Ergo, TOTAL AFFECTED (Q1) subtracted by (Q3 + Q4), which appears to all intents and purposes a relatively straightforward task for a government department with vast resources at their disposal and (one would hope) sufficient levels of expertise and competence to report these figures on a regular basis to the Executive. I therefore request an internal review to re-evaluate the specific question I asked and your subsequent (unacceptable) response.
You close your response with a section 'Outside the FOIA', containing additional information. This includes a link to HMRC evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee on 07 September and incorporates comments and responses from the Customer Compliance Group's Director General. Her recorded statements of evidence reference the same 'estimate' of 50,000 affected individuals, and various (lesser) numbers related to those who have supposedly been removed from the scope of this legislation, those who have settled, those who actually remain 'able' to settle, those who may have 'paused' and remain in discussion - and so on. None of these figures provide a shred of context - or evidence. It is clear that even the CCG's Director General could not (or would not) provide accurate, meaningful statistics on the issue of settlement or the numbers of people involved and I would challenge you (or anyone within HMRC) to dissect those figures she has conveyed to the PAC in order to be able to provide a coherent and accurate summary.
In contrast, the remaining paragraph in this section did provide a clear statistic - you state that between Budget 2016 and up to March 2020, you have agreed around 11,000 settlements with employers and individuals, with agreed amounts totalling around £2.6 billion. These figures included settlements agreed under a TTP arrangement and were expected to change as more cases might still be settled ahead of the 30 September deadline. Based on the original estimate of a £3.2 billion yield (as previously mentioned here and publicly available on gov.uk), this means that there remains a 'shortfall' of £600 million which (by a simple deduction of 11,000 from your own estimate of 50,000 affected individuals) leaves 39,000 people still owing an alleged, collective 'debt' of £600 million.
Within the course of the internal review which I have requested above, please can you confirm this statistic as FACT - thank you.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...
Yours faithfully,
F Thompson
Our ref: IR2020/02452
Dear F. Thompson,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement
Thank you for your communication of 27th October which has been passed to
HMRC's Freedom of Information Team.
We have allocated the above reference which you should quote if you need
to contact us.
The Team will arrange for a reply to be sent to you which will either
comply with HMRC's obligations under Freedom of Information Act or, if we
think it's an enquiry that we don't need to address under the terms of the
Act, let you know why. If it is the latter we will, if possible, pass it
on to a more appropriate part of the Department 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
Dear HMRC Freedom of Information Team,
I raised a request for an internal review of FOI2020/01610 on 27 October - you responded on 28 October with the relevant reference number.
The Information Commissioner's guidelines in relation to the estimated timeline for this review state that it should take no longer than 20 working days in most cases, or 40 in exceptional circumstances (which must be accordingly justified and communicated).
As of today's date, I have still not received a (long overdue) reply, nor have I been contacted to offer any explanation for the delay. In accordance with the Commissioner's guidelines, and the fact that it has now been 40 working days since my request for an IR was raised, I formally solicit an immediate response in order for you to:
a) justify the reason for this delay
b) provide an explanation as to why you have failed to previously communicate the prospect or likelihood of a delay
and
c) provide a full and concise response to each of my follow-up questions, confirm that the internal review on my original submission has been carried out in accordance with the Commissioner's guidelines, and to supply all the information requested.
Yours sincerely,
F Thompson
Dear F. Thompson,
We are writing in response to your request for information, received 27
October.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Freedom of Information Team
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now