HMRC has been accused of using “dangerous and sinister” new tactics in a tax crackdown that has already been linked to 10 suicides.
The government has recently come under pressure over the “Loan Charge” – controversial legislation which made tens of thousands of contractors who were paid their salaries through loans retrospectively liable for tax their employer should have paid.
The clampdown has been branded on par with the Post Office Horizon scandal as the unaffordable bills have been linked to suicides and bankruptcies, while one woman had an abortion due to the financial strain she was under, a debate in parliament heard last month.
HMRC has been criticised for going after individuals – including teachers, nurses and cleaners – rather than the firms that profited from promoting the schemes as tax compliant.
However ministers have resisted pressure to overturn the policy, saying a review conducted by Lord Morse in 2019 resulted in a series of reforms to reduce the financial pressures of the some 50,000 people affected.
Crucially this included cutting the policy’s 20-year retrospective period so only loans received after December 2010 were in scope.
More on Tax
Related Topics:
However it has emerged that HMRC have been pursuing people involved in loan schemes prior to 2010 through a different mechanism – a s684 notice.
This effectively gives HMRC the discretion to transfer a tax burden from an employer to an employee for the tax years excluded from the Loan Charge.
Advertisement
Conservative MP Greg Smith, co-chair of the Loan Charge APPG, said it “flies in the face” of what Lord Morse intended and risks more people taking their own lives because of the unaffordable bills.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:31
Loan scheme causing tax turmoil
‘I could lose my home’
Sky News spoke to people who said they had experienced suicidal thoughts and feared becoming homeless after unexpectedly receiving the notices.
While the s684s don’t state how much tax is owed, one father-of-three said his bill could be as high as £250,000 as this is how much HMRC have previously tried to claw back from his time in a loan scheme pre-2010.
The IT consultant, who asked to remain anonymous, said he attempted to settle his tax affairs years ago but communication with the tax office “fizzled out” and following the Morse review he believed the “nightmare” was behind him.
Then in November he received a brown envelope containing an s684 and now he is worried HMRC is “going to absolutely hammer me” just as he is approaching retirement age.
“I have three children and in the worst case scenario I will lose my home.
“I can’t think of another government policy that has caused so much suffering. I fear this could really push some people over the edge.”
Image: Wreathes to honour the suicides linked to the tax crackdown. There have now been 10 confirmed by HMRC
‘Dreadful landscape’
It is not clear how many people have been sent the notices.
The government previously estimated that 11,000 people would be removed from the Loan Charge by introducing the 2010 cut off.
While the Loan Charge is seen as particularly punitive because it adds together all outstanding loans and taxes them in a single year, often at the 45% rate, the notices mean HMRC can use its own discretion to turn off an employer’s PAYE obligations and seek the income tax that would have been due that year from the employee instead.
Rhys Thomas, director of the WTT tax firm, told Sky News: “There is considerable and understandable confusion amongst taxpayers that when the Morse review removed the loan charge for payments pre 9th December 2010, it was assumed that HMRC had no further recourse for those years.
“Where enquiries were outstanding for the earlier tax years, HMRC will seek to conclude these by utilising tools such as s684 notices.”
He called the situation a “dreadful landscape” as those in receipt of the notices only have 30 days to respond to HMRC over something “that has taken them 15 years to investigate”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
There is no right to appeal the notices, so the only way to challenge HMRC is through a costly Judicial Review.
“It’s causing a huge amount of distress and anxiety; it’s hugely concerning and for lots of people it’s come as a surprise,” Mr Thomas said.
WTT is representing around 200 people who are challenging the notices, saying HMRC has not done enough to go after the core parties who should have collected the tax at the time.
A spokesperson for HMRC said the Morse Review “recommend we use our normal powers to investigate and settle cases taken out of the Loan Charge”.
They said they had been issuing the notices since May 2022, having won a case at the Court of Appeal over their use in relation to loan schemes, “so it’s not a sudden change”.
Have you been affected by this story?
You can share your experience, pictures or video with us using our app, private messaging or email.
By sending us your video footage/ photographs/ audio you agree we can broadcast, publish and edit the material.
But campaigners disputed the use of the notices as “normal” and said it is another example of HMRC “abusing its power” to go after individuals rather than the companies that ran and promoted the loan schemes.
These became prolific in the 2000s and saw self-employed contractors encouraged to join umbrella companies that paid them their salaries through loans which were not typically paid back.
HMRC has argued those who signed up to the schemes are tax evaders who need to pay their fair share. But those affected claim they are victims of mis-selling as the arrangements were widely marketed as legitimate by the scheme promoters and tax advisers, and in some cases they had no choice but to be paid this way.
IT consultant Daniel (not his real name), from Stoke, said he did not stand to make any money from the scheme he joined in 2008 and was simply trying to avoid falling foul of complex off-payroll rules known as IR35.
His tax adviser said the scheme was HMRC compliant and the company said they “would sort out my taxes”, he added.
Image: Loan Charge protest
He said he “did not hear a peep” from HMRC during his time in the scheme and his payslip looked normal as around 20% was being deducted from his salary each month – money experts say will have gone into the profits of those running the company rather than tax to the exchequer.
Now, he is expecting a £30,000 bill after receiving an s684 in November – cash the father-of-four “does not have”.
“If I felt like I had done something wrong I would accept it but I did not make one penny from this scheme, it was all to do with compliance and to make my life as simple as possible.
“This is causing so much stress and frustration. I have had plenty of sleepless nights.
“It feels like the Post Office scandal where we are the little people being backed into a corner and there’s nothing we can do and those who are really guilty are just laughing.”
The notices have renewed calls for the government to find a new solution to the Loan Charge scandal.
Keith Gordon, a tax barrister, said HMRC “is effectively responsible for this mess because they failed to warn employees that they did not like these schemes”.
Image: Keith Gordon said HMRC is targeting individuals because it is an easier way of recouping the money
“Most people, if they got a whiff of HMRC dislike, would have left these schemes but they were sold it as being tax compliant. Why should the blame be on people who were at the very worst merely naïve?”
Campaigners fear the s684s will be used across the board instead of the Loan Charge, which Labour has said it will review if it wins the next election.
Steve Packham, of the Loan Charge Action Group, accused HMRC of being “downright reckless” in light of the 10 confirmed suicides, adding: “This is sinister and dangerous and is another example of how out-of-control HMRC is.
“The government must immediately order a stop to these notices and instead agree to find a resolution to the Loan Charge Scandal before there are more lives ruined.”
Image: Greg Smith, co-chair of the Loan Charge Action and Taxpayer Fairness APPG. Pic: PA
A HMRC spokesperson said: “We appreciate there’s a human story behind every tax bill and we take the wellbeing of all taxpayers seriously.
“We recognise dealing with large tax liabilities can lead to pressure on individuals and we are committed to supporting customers who need extra help with their tax liabilities. We have made significant improvements to this service over the last few years.
“Our message to anyone who is worried about paying what they owe is: please contact us as soon as possible to talk about your options.”
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK.
Taiwan could see its first stablecoin launched as early as the second half of 2026 as lawmakers advance new rules for digital assets, according to one of the country’s financial regulators.
According to a Focus Taiwan report on Wednesday, Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) Chair Peng Jin-lon said that, based on the timeline for passing related legislation, a Taiwan-issued stablecoin could enter the market in the second half of 2026.
Should the Virtual Assets Service Act pass in the country’s next legislative session, and accounting for a six-month buffer period for the law to take effect, it would lay the groundwork for the launch of a Taiwanese stablecoin.
Peng said the draft legislation was derived from Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) and would eventually allow non-financial institutions to issue stablecoins. Initially, however, Taiwan’s central bank and the FSC would restrict issuance to regulated entities.
Last year, Taiwan’s policymakers began enforcing Anti-Money Laundering regulations in response to alleged violations by crypto companies MaiCoin and BitoPro. As of December, however, regulated entities in the country have yet to launch a stablecoin pegged to either the US dollar or the Taiwan dollar.
In addition to the FSC’s advancement of stablecoin regulations, Taiwan’s policymakers are reportedly assessing the total amount of Bitcoin (BTC) confiscated by authorities. The move signaled that the nation could be preparing to launch its own strategic crypto stockpile.
Ju-Chun, a Taiwanese lawmaker, called on the government to add BTC to its national reserves in May as a hedge against economic uncertainty.
The country’s reserves include US Treasury bonds and gold, but no cryptocurrencies. Other countries, such as the US, have adopted policies that promote Bitcoin and crypto reserves.
Former US Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler renewed his warning to investors about the risks of cryptocurrencies, calling most of the market “highly speculative” in a new Bloomberg interview on Tuesday.
He carved out Bitcoin (BTC) as comparatively closer to a commodity while stressing that most tokens don’t offer “a dividend” or “usual returns.”
Gensler framed the current market backdrop as a reckoning consistent with warnings he made while in office that the global public’s fascination with cryptocurrencies doesn’t equate to fundamentals.
“All the thousands of other tokens, not the stablecoins that are backed by US dollars, but all the thousands of other tokens, you have to ask yourself, what are the fundamentals? What’s underlying it… The investing public just needs to be aware of those risks,” he said.
Gensler’s record and industry backlash
Gensler led the SEC from April 17, 2021, to Jan. 20, 2025, overseeing an aggressive enforcement agenda that included lawsuits against major crypto intermediaries and the view that many tokens are unregistered securities.
The industry winced at high‑profile actions against exchanges and staking programs, as well as the posture that most token issuers fell afoul of registration rules.
Gary Gensler labels crypto as “highly speculative.” Source: Bloomberg
Under Gensler’s tenure, Coinbase was sued by the SEC for operating as an unregistered exchange, broker and clearing agency, and for offering an unregistered staking-as-a-service program. Kraken was also forced to shut its US staking program and pay a $30 million penalty.
The politicization of crypto
Pushed on the politicization of crypto, including references to the Trump family’s crypto involvement by the Bloomberg interviewer, the former chair rejected the framing.
“No, I don’t think so,” he said, arguing it’s more about capital markets fairness and “commonsense rules of the road,” than a “Democrat versus Republican thing.”
He added: “When you buy and sell a stock or a bond, you want to get various information,” and “the same treatment as the big investors.” That’s the fairness underpinning US capital markets.
On ETFs, Gensler said finance “ever since antiquity… goes toward centralization,” so it’s unsurprising that an ecosystem born decentralized has become “more integrated and more centralized.”
He noted that investors can already express themselves in gold and silver through exchange‑traded funds, and that during his tenure, the first US Bitcoin futures ETFs were approved, tying parts of crypto’s plumbing more closely to traditional markets.
Gensler’s latest comments draw a familiar line: Bitcoin sits in a different bucket, while most other tokens remain, in his view, speculative and light on fundamentals.
Even out of office, his framing will echo through courts, compliance desks and allocation committees weighing BTC’s status against persistent regulatory caution of altcoins.
New figures reveal a 70% year-on-year increase in Cayman Islands foundation company registrations, with more than 1,300 on the books at the end of 2024, and over 400 new registrations already in 2025.
According to a news release from Cayman Finance, many of the world’s largest Web3 projects are now registered in the Cayman Islands, including at least 17 foundation companies with treasuries over $100 million.
Why DAOs are choosing Cayman
The Cayman foundation company has emerged as a preferred tool for DAOs that need to sign contracts, hire contributors, hold IP and interact with regulators, all while shielding tokenholders from personal liability for the DAO’s obligations.
The legal wake‑up call for many communities came in 2024 with Samuels v. Lido DAO, in which a US federal judge found that an unwrapped DAO could be treated as a general partnership under California law, exposing participants to personal liability.
The Cayman foundation company is designed to plug that gap, offering a separate legal personality and the ability to own assets and sign agreements, while giving tokenholders assurance that they are not partners by default.
Rise in Cayman Islands foundation company registrations | Source: Cayman Finance
Add tax neutrality, a legal framework familiar to institutional allocators and an ecosystem of companies that specialize in Web3 treasuries, and it becomes clear why more projects have quietly redomiciled their foundations to Grand Cayman.
Elsewhere, policymakers have made big promises but delivered patchwork. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly pledged to turn the United States into the “crypto capital of the planet,” but at the entity level, only a handful of states explicitly recognize DAOs as legal persons.
Switzerland remains the archetypal onshore Web3 foundation center, with the Crypto Valley region now hosting over 1,700 active blockchain firms, up more than 130% since 2020, with foundations and associations representing a growing share of new structures.
The surge in Web3 foundations coincides with a shift in Cayman’s own regulatory posture — the arrival of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Crypto‑Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), which the Cayman Islands has now implemented via new Tax Information Authority regulations that take effect from Jan. 1, 2026.
CARF will impose due diligence and reporting duties on Cayman “Reporting Crypto‑Asset Service Providers” (entities that exchange crypto for fiat or other crypto, operate trading platforms or provide custodial services), requiring them to collect tax‑residence data from users, track relevant transactions and file annual reports with the Tax Information Authority.
Legal professionals note that CARF reporting under the current interpretation applies to relevant crypto-asset service providers, including exchanges, brokers and dealers, which likely leaves structures that merely hold crypto assets, such as protocol treasuries, investment funds, or passive foundations, off the hook.
“The key question is whether your entity, as a business, provides a service effectuating exchange transactions for or on behalf of customers, including by acting as a counterparty or intermediary or by making available a trading platform.”
In practice, that means many pure treasury or ecosystem‑steward foundations should be able to continue benefitting from Cayman’s legal certainty and tax neutrality without being dragged into full reporting status, so long as they are not in the business of running exchange, brokerage or custody services.