HMRC can publish the name, address and penalty details of anyone charged a penalty for deliberate wrongdoing after an investigation, where the tax at stake exceeds £50,000. That threshold applies from 2 October 2026; it was previously £25,000. You cannot be published if you receive the maximum penalty reduction for disclosure, which in practice means telling HMRC everything promptly and helping fully, and for offshore cases making an unprompted disclosure.

What law allows HMRC to publish names?

Section 94 of the Finance Act 2009 lets HMRC publish information about a person where, as a result of an HMRC investigation, they incur one or more relevant tax penalties and the potential lost revenue on those penalties exceeds the threshold. The Compliance Handbook at CH190100 confirms the regime runs from 1 April 2010. HMRC’s factsheet CC/FS13 explains that the aim is to deter deliberate non compliance and to encourage people to come forward.

This is separate from HMRC’s managing serious defaulters programme, and from criminal prosecution, covered in our page on criminal tax investigations.

Which penalties can lead to publication?

Under section 94(2), a relevant tax penalty is:

  • an inaccuracy penalty under Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007 for a deliberate inaccuracy, whether or not concealed;
  • a Schedule 24 paragraph 1A penalty on a third party who deliberately supplied false information or withheld information so that someone else’s return was wrong;
  • a failure to notify penalty under Schedule 41 to the Finance Act 2008 for a deliberate failure; or
  • a Schedule 41 penalty for deliberate VAT or excise wrongdoing, such as issuing an unauthorised VAT invoice.

Careless errors never lead to publication. Only deliberate behaviour does.

What are HMRC’s five publication questions?

CH190100 sets out five questions, all of which must be answered yes:

  1. Is this a relevant penalty, meaning one for deliberate behaviour?
  2. Does it relate to a period covered by the rules, which means a return period beginning on or after 1 April 2010, or a failure or wrongdoing on or after that date?
  3. Was the penalty found as a consequence of an investigation? HMRC treats any check by an officer as an investigation.
  4. Is it a qualifying relevant penalty, meaning one where the maximum reduction for quality of disclosure was not given?
  5. Does the total potential lost revenue on the qualifying penalties exceed £50,000?

How did the threshold change in 2026?

The Finance Act 2009 (Publishing Details of Deliberate Tax Defaulters: Increase to Threshold) Order 2026, SI 2026/1000, raised the figure in section 94(1)(b) from £25,000 to £50,000 with effect from 2 October 2026. On the same day HMRC updated its published list, removing names where the tax or duty was less than £50,000. HMRC’s policy paper of 13 July 2026 says the increase broadly reflects inflation since the threshold was introduced and focuses publication on more serious cases.

The same policy paper describes further changes planned through the Finance Bill 2026 to 2027: publishing a description of the non compliance and the tax and penalty types, and a new section 94A allowing HMRC to publish details of company officers who receive personal liability notices for a company’s deliberate penalty. Those changes are stated to apply to deliberate non compliance taking place after Royal Assent. Older guidance, including CC/FS13, still quotes £25,000.

How does full disclosure avoid publication?

Section 94(10) prevents publication where the penalty has been reduced for disclosure to the full extent permitted. CC/FS13 explains how that works at each stage.

Before HMRC starts a check. If you have no reason to believe HMRC has discovered or is about to discover the problem and you come forward (an unprompted disclosure), HMRC cannot publish your details if it accepts what you say without a check, or if it opens a check and finds you had already told it everything correctly. If a check is needed, you can still avoid publication by giving HMRC everything it needs as soon as you can, provided there is nothing else you deliberately got wrong.

After a check has started. You may still avoid publication if you tell HMRC everything you know about what you deliberately did wrong as soon as it tells you the check has started, and you help throughout, including giving access to records. If HMRC agrees you did this, it may give the maximum penalty reduction, and then it cannot publish.

Offshore cases. For deliberate inaccuracies or failures involving an offshore matter or offshore transfer, only an unprompted disclosure that earns the full reduction prevents publication. A prompted disclosure, however complete, does not. See our pages on offshore penalties and the Worldwide Disclosure Facility.

Timing also counts. HMRC’s inaccuracy penalty factsheet CC/FS7a says that where a disclosure takes a long time, for example three years or more, it will usually restrict the reduction for quality of disclosure to 10 percentage points above the minimum. A restricted reduction is not the maximum reduction, so it can leave the penalty in scope for publication.

What gets published, where and for how long?

Section 94(4) allows HMRC to publish the person’s name (including trading and previous names), address or registered office, the nature of their business, the penalties and potential lost revenue, the periods involved and anything else needed to identify them. For companies and partnerships with offshore deliberate penalties, sections 94(4A) to 94(4D) allow HMRC to name individuals who control the business and obtained a tax advantage, and similar rules apply to trustees.

HMRC publishes the list on GOV.UK. Under sections 94(7) to 94(9), nothing can be published until the penalty is final, first publication must be within one year of that date, and details cannot stay published for more than one year from first publication. A penalty becomes final when appeal rights expire or an appeal is decided, or when a contract settlement is made.

Can you object to publication?

Yes, but only through representations and, ultimately, judicial review. Section 94(6) requires HMRC to tell you it is considering publication and give you a reasonable opportunity to make representations. CH191040 says the specialist team normally allows 30 days. HMRC aims to publish in every case that meets the conditions and will decline only in exceptional circumstances, for example where publication would prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or cause a serious and verifiable risk to the person’s safety.

CH191060 states that there is no right of appeal to the tax tribunal against the decision to publish. You can appeal the tax, the decision that a penalty is due and its amount, but the publication decision itself can only be challenged by judicial review.

How might this work in practice?

Illustration only. A trader deliberately understated sales over several years, with potential lost revenue of £60,000. HMRC opens a check. If the trader admits everything at once, provides all records and helps quantify the figure, HMRC may give the maximum reduction and the trader will not be published, even though the penalty still applies. If the trader instead denies the problem until HMRC proves it, the reduction will be smaller, the penalty qualifies, and with £60,000 of potential lost revenue the trader can be named. Had the potential lost revenue been £40,000 and the penalty become final after 2 October 2026, the trader would fall below the new threshold.

What mistakes lead to people being named?

  • Waiting for HMRC to find the problem rather than making an unprompted disclosure.
  • Making a partial disclosure. Anything else deliberate that HMRC later finds can be published.
  • Delaying cooperation once a check opens, which reduces the disclosure reduction below the maximum.
  • Assuming a prompted disclosure protects undeclared offshore income. It does not.
  • Appealing the publication decision to the tribunal, which has no jurisdiction over it, instead of making representations within the 30 day window.

For the penalty ranges themselves, see HMRC penalties for tax return errors.

If HMRC opens a check into your return, tax investigation insurance pays your accountant’s fees. Solar Protect cover pays up to £100,000 with no excess; it never pays tax, interest or penalties. Read how our cover works or get a quote.

Related Accountapedia entries

Sources

Reviewed by Christine Anderson, Broker, Solar Protect. Last reviewed 8 October 2026. Part of Accountapedia, the Solar Protect guide to UK tax and accounting. This page is general information, not personalised advice.