‘You feel like you can’t fight back’: How thousands are being targeted by a harsh HMRC tax-collecting scheme linked to 10 suicides
Four years ago, Michael Squires received a letter that turned his life upside down.
A brown envelope containing a tax demand for £24,000 landed on his doormat.
It came out of nowhere and gave Mr Squires sleepless nights as he worried about where he would find the money.
“It’s a horrible anxious feeling, I knew that I had taken due diligence and I knew that I had done what I thought was right,” he said.
“So, you feel the system is against you, you feel like you can’t fight back. In a way, you know that you’ve been conned, and you feel stupid… and I felt that for quite some time.”
Mr Squires, a healthcare worker from Leicestershire, is not alone.
Tens of thousands of people across the country are facing crippling tax demands from HMRC in a harsh campaign that has been linked to 10 suicides.
HMRC has been ruthlessly pursuing people with the “loan charge” which came into force in 2017 through a piece of legislation that targeted those who were paid their salaries through loan schemes. It made individuals liable for tax that their employers should have paid.
Tax lawyers described it as an unjust campaign that is targeting the wrong people and undermining the rule of law by overriding statutory taxpayer rights.
HMRC has been targeting workers who had their salaries paid into umbrella companies, which would pay individuals a loan that was typically not paid back. Many of those who signed up, including nurses, supply teachers and council workers, had little or no choice but to take on work through these schemes.
They were directed to the schemes by their work agencies, reassured that their tax and national insurance was being taken care of and that the schemes were HMRC compliant.
In many cases, they were mis-sold.
HMRC threatens to auction off people’s property
For years HMRC failed to act against these schemes, which resulted in widespread underpayment of income tax and national insurance. The courts have since ruled that the employers or agencies should have been paying tax to the exchequer. However, the loan charge legislation allowed HMRC to pursue individuals in lieu of the agencies or employers.
Five years ago HMRC started sending letters to individuals, explaining that these schemes were “disguised remuneration schemes”, imposing a tax liability on what it now classified as income and applying interest – then urging them to settle.
In some cases, the bills ran into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. Those who could or would not pay were warned that they would be hit with a loan charge, typically a much larger amount because the total sum was taxed in a single year, often applying a 45% tax rate on the income. It meant that in many cases people were paying back far more than they would have done if they weren’t part of the schemes.
HMRC threatened to take people’s possessions and sell them at auction if they didn’t find the money.
In some cases, the agency set up payment plans, but in others, people had little choice but to take out further loans.
Tens of thousands of people are still living in fear of bankruptcy, and they could be forced to hand over cash if and when they sell their homes.
The consequences have been devastating.
HMRC ‘aren’t out of pocket’
Sky News has spoken to families whose lives have been torn apart. One woman told us that her marriage was breaking down, while others described dangerous mental health spirals.
HMRC has admitted that there have been 10 suicides linked to the loan charge.
It has referred cases of suicide to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which oversees certain serious complaints about the conduct of tax inspectors.
Campaigners have repeatedly warned of the risk of further suicides and have demanded that HMRC provide a 24-hour suicide prevention helpline.
Mr Squires said: “We are being pursued by a very big organisation who hasn’t warned us. I received a warning letter four years later that I may have been employed by a company involved in a scheme that wasn’t legitimate.
“So, we’ve had no warning. HMRC is not out of pocket. The umbrella companies aren’t out of pocket.
“The agencies that pushed it aren’t out of pocket. It’s only the end worker and we’re just normal people.”
Michael Squires says he felt like the system was against him
HMRC targeting individuals rather then scheme organisers
While some of those who engaged in loan schemes entered into them with the explicit intent to minimise their tax bills, a large number were simply trying to do the right thing.
In many cases individuals were advised by their work agencies to sign up to the umbrella companies to streamline their tax affairs, helping them to avoid the complicated process of setting up a limited company.
Others turned to the umbrella companies because they were worried about falling foul of new IR35 rules that apply to contractors operating as limited companies.
The NHS, local authorities and other public sector organisations all engaged workers who were part of these schemes.
Back in 2021 HMRC even admitted that it had at least 15 contractors on its own books who were part of “disguised remuneration schemes” between 2016 and 2020.
Read more from Sky News:
Asylum seekers moved from taxpayer-funded hotels – to other hotels
Warning about huge number of Facebook Marketplace scams
Toddler found starved to death – prompting questions for police
Keith Gordon, a tax barrister, said: “When the contractors were paid, the PAYE rules applied and were meant to ensure the tax was deducted from the salary before it was received by the workers.
“That PAYE was not paid. The workers suffered a deduction but that was just simply taken as fees by the promoters of the schemes which were running rather dubious tax avoidance of agents without contractors’ knowledge.”
He suggested that HMRC were targeting individuals instead of the organisers of the schemes because it was an easier way of recouping the money.
Mr Gordon continued: “Number one: The promoters have deeper pockets and might be able to fight back against unfair legislation.
“Number two: That would probably amount to admitting the revenue made a mistake in the first place.
“Number three: Some of these promoters are now insolvent because they’ve had plenty of years to wind up their affairs and become out of the reach of the tax authorities.”
Keith Gordon said HMRC is targeting individuals because it is easier
Loan charge has ‘no legal basis’
MPs and tax lawyers are calling for HMRC to rescind the policy – arguing that it amounts to a retrospective charge that overrides taxpayers’ statutory protections by effectively dismissing time limits on HMRC’s right to investigate tax affairs and by blocking individuals’ rights to fight their case in court.
It is also without any legal precedent.
The courts have repeatedly rejected HMRC’s interpretation that income tax can be applied on loans to individuals.
A 2017 Supreme Court ruling put the onus on the employer to deduct income tax before loans were advanced to an individual.
A 2019 parliamentary report concluded that “the loan charge is in defiance of the rulings of the court… no court case has given the legal basis for the loan charge”.
MPs are preparing to debate the loan charge in parliament today, where they will hear that tens of thousands of people were the victims of widespread mis-selling.
They will question why HMRC is not putting more energy into targeting the promoters and companies responsible for these schemes.
These companies made their money by charging individuals a fee to run the loan schemes. It meant that in many cases people had similar deductions to what they would have had if they were under PAYE.
David Davis, Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden, said: “The loan charge has been, frankly, a government-sponsored disaster for a very large number of people, ordinary decent people, nurses and other ordinary people who were faced with a work contract that denied them any employment rights, told them they had to accept and that was the basis on which they got the job.”
He added that HMRC should “go back to the promoters, go back to the contractors who insisted on these terms and say, ‘you can pay at least your share, if not the whole bill’, but they’re not doing that. And I’m afraid in my view, they’ve made a massive ethical error in not doing so”.
An HMRC spokesperson said: “The loan charge seeks to recover tax that has been avoided by disguising income as loans. It is our responsibility to collect the tax that people owe.
“We take the wellbeing of all taxpayers very seriously and recognise that dealing with large tax liabilities can lead to pressure on individuals.
“The support we have in place to help people settle their previous tax avoidance includes offering payment by instalments: these arrangements are based on what the taxpayer can afford, and there’s no upper limit over how long we can spread payments.
“Our message to anyone who is worried about paying what they owe is: please contact us as soon as possible to talk about options.
“Above all we want to prevent people getting into these types of situations and our message is clear – if a tax scheme sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
Read more: Thousands of jobs at risk as British Steel consults unions over closure
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Read more:
Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion
There were no winners from Trump’s tariff gameshow
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
British Steel declined to comment.
UK
Prince Andrew’s Pitch@Palace branded ‘crude attempt to enrich himself’ as Chinese spy documents set to be released
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
Read more:
Who is Yang Tenbo?
Virginia Giuffre says she has days to live
Emails between Andrew and Epstein revealed
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway