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.
An official from the Bank of Russia suggested easing restrictions on cryptocurrencies in response to the sweeping sanctions imposed on the country.
According to a Monday report by local news outlet Kommersant, Bank of Russia First Deputy Governor Vladimir Chistyukhin said the regulator is discussing easing regulations for cryptocurrencies. He explicitly linked the rationale for this effort to the sanctions imposed on Russia by Western countries following its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Chistyukhin said that easing the crypto rules is particularly relevant when Russia and Russians are subject to restrictions “on the use of normal currencies for making payments abroad.”
Chistyukhin said he expects Russia’s central bank to reach an agreement with the Ministry of Finance on this issue by the end of this month. The central issue being discussed is the removal of the requirement to meet the “super-qualified investor” criteria for buying and selling crypto with actual delivery. The requirement was introduced in late April when Russia’s finance ministry and central bank were launching a crypto exchange.
The super-qualified investor classification, created earlier this year, is defined by wealth and income thresholds of over 100 million rubles ($1.3 million) or an annual income of at least 50 million rubles.
This limits access to cryptocurrencies for transactions or investment to only the wealthiest few in Russian society. “We are discussing the feasibility of using ‘superquals’ in the new regulation of crypto assets,” Chistyukhin said, in an apparent shifting approach to the restrictive regulation.
Russia has been hit with sweeping Western sanctions for years, and regulators in the United States and Europe have increasingly targeted crypto-based efforts to evade those measures.
In late October, the European Union adopted its 19th sanctions package against Russia, including restrictions on cryptocurrency platforms. This also included sanctions against the A7A5 ruble-backed stablecoin, which EU authorities described as “a prominent tool for financing activities supporting the war of aggression.”
Bitcoin’s latest pullback may already be bottoming out, with asset manager Grayscale arguing that the market is on track to break the traditional four-year halving cycle and potentially set new all-time highs in 2026.
Some indicators are already pointing to a local bottom, not a prolonged drawdown, including Bitcoin’s (BTC) elevated option skew rising above 4, which signals that investors have already hedged “extensively” for downside exposure.
Despite a 32% decline, Bitcoin is on track to disrupt the traditional four-year halving cycle, wrote Grayscale in a Monday research report. “Although the outlook is uncertain, we believe the four-year cycle thesis will prove to be incorrect, and that Bitcoin’s price will potentially make new highs next year,” the report said.
Bitcoin pullback, compared to previous drawdowns. Source: research.grayscale.com
Still, Bitcoin’s short-term recovery remains limited until some of the main flow indicators stage a reversal, including futures open interest, exchange-traded fund (ETF) inflows and selling from long-term Bitcoin holders.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs, one of the main drivers of Bitcoin’s momentum in 2025, added significant downside pressure in November, racking up $3.48 billion in net negative outflows in their second-worst month on record, according to Farside Investors.
Bitcoin ETF Flow, in USD, million. Source: Farside Investors
More recently, though, the tide has started to turn. The funds have now logged four consecutive days of inflows, including a modest $8.5 million on Monday, suggesting ETF buyer appetite is slowly returning after the sell-off.
While market positioning suggests a “leverage reset rather than a sentiment break,” the key question is whether Bitcoin can “reclaim the low-$90,000s to avoid sliding toward mid-to-low-$80,000 support,” Iliya Kalchev, dispatch analyst at digital asset platform Nexo, told Cointelegraph.
Fed policy and US crypto bill loom as 2026 catalysts
Crypto market watchers now await the largest “swing factor,” the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision on Dec. 10. The Fed’s decision and monetary policy guidance will serve as a significant catalyst for 2026, according to Grayscale.
Markets are pricing in an 87% chance of a 25 basis point interest rate cut, up from 63% a month ago, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool.
Later in 2026, Grayscale said continued progress toward the Digital Asset Market Structure bill may act as another catalyst for driving “institutional investment in the industry.” However, for more progress to be made, crypto needs to remain a “bipartisan issue,” and not turn into a partisan topic for the midterm US elections.
That effort effectively began with the passage of the CLARITY Act in the House of Representatives, which moved forward in July as part of the Republicans’ “crypto week” agenda. Senate leaders have said they plan to “build on” the House bill under the banner of the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, aiming to set a broader framework for digital asset markets.
The bill is currently under consideration in the Republican-led Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Banking Committee. Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott said in November that the committee planned to have the bill ready for signing into law by early 2026.
Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki declined to sign a bill imposing strict regulations on the crypto asset market, drawing praise from the crypto community and sharp criticism from others in the government.
Nawrocki vetoed Poland’s Crypto-Asset Market Act, saying its provisions “genuinely threaten the freedoms of Poles, their property, and the stability of the state,” according to a statement by the president’s press office on Monday.
Introduced in June, the bill has drawn criticism from industry advocates such as Polish politician Tomasz Mentzen, who had anticipated the president’s refusal to sign it as it cleared parliamentary approval.
Although crypto advocates welcomed the veto as a win for the market, several government officials condemned the move, claiming the president had “chosen chaos” and must bear full responsibility for the outcome.
Why the president vetoed the bill
One of the main reasons cited for the veto was a provision allowing authorities to easily block websites operating in the crypto market.
“Domain blocking laws are opaque and can lead to abuse,” the president’s office said in an official news release.
The president’s office also cited the bill’s widely criticized length, saying its complexity reduces transparency and would lead to “overregulation,” especially when compared with simpler frameworks in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.
Source: Press office of Polish President Karol Nawrocki (post translated by X)
“Overregulation is an easy way to drive companies to the Czech Republic, Lithuania or Malta, rather than create conditions for them to operate and pay taxes in Poland,” the president said.
Nawrocki also highlighted the excessive amount of supervisory fees, which may prevent startup activity and favor foreign corporations and banks.
“This is a reversal of logic, killing off a competitive market and a serious threat to innovation,” he said.
Critics jump in: “The president chose chaos”
Nawrocki’s veto has triggered a strong backlash from top Polish officials, including Finance Minister Andrzej Domański and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski.
Domański warned on X that “already now 20% of clients are losing their money as a result of abuses in this market,” accusing the president of having “chosen chaos” and saying he bears full responsibility for the fallout.
Sikorski echoed the concern, saying that the bill was supposed to regulate the crypto market. “When the bubble bursts and thousands of Poles lose their savings, at least they will know who to thank,” Sikorski argued on X.
Source: Finance Minister Andrzej Domański (posts translated by X)
Crypto advocates, including Polish economist Krzysztof Piech, quickly pushed back, arguing that the president cannot be held responsible for authorities failing to pursue scammers.
He also noted that the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is set to provide investor protections across all EU member states starting July 1, 2026.