HMRC’s “name and shame” full disclosure regime allows it to publish the details of businesses and individuals found to have deliberately underpaid tax. The power is statutory and remains fully operational in 2026. Where a qualifying civil penalty for deliberate behaviour becomes final, HMRC can make the default public.
From April 2026, the compliance environment becomes tougher. HMRC’s strengthened whistleblower reward scheme now offers financial incentives for reporting serious tax evasion and high-value tax fraud. Intelligence provided under that framework may lead to investigation, penalties and, where deliberate conduct is established, publication under the deliberate defaulter rules.
For business owners and directors, this new risk exposure extends to financial settlement, public naming, reputational impact and commercial consequences.
Section A: What Is HMRC’s “Name and Shame” Full Disclosure Policy?
HMRC’s “name and shame” regime refers to its statutory power to publish the details of deliberate tax defaulters. The power is contained in section 94 of the Finance Act 2009 and allows HMRC to make public the identity of taxpayers who incur certain civil penalties for deliberate behaviour.
Publication does not require a criminal conviction. A civil finding of deliberate conduct can be sufficient, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied.
1. The Legal Basis for Publication
Section 94 Finance Act 2009 permits HMRC to publish information where a person has incurred a relevant penalty for deliberate tax default and the statutory threshold is met. The penalty position must also be final, meaning appeal rights have been exhausted or the time limit for appeal has expired.
The regime applies to companies, partnerships and individuals. It is not limited to large corporates. Small and medium-sized businesses are equally within scope if the criteria are met.
Publication cannot occur while a penalty remains under appeal. Once finalised, HMRC has discretion to publish.
2. What Counts as Deliberate Behaviour?
A finding of deliberate behaviour means HMRC considers that the taxpayer intentionally provided inaccurate information, deliberately withheld relevant facts or failed to notify a tax liability despite knowing that an obligation existed.
In practice, this may involve knowingly suppressing sales or income, fabricating or inflating expense claims, operating hidden payroll arrangements or failing to register for tax while aware that registration was required. The common feature is intention rather than oversight.
HMRC draws a clear distinction between deliberate conduct and careless error. A careless inaccuracy arises where reasonable care was not taken. A deliberate inaccuracy involves conscious decision-making. The financial penalties are higher where behaviour is categorised as deliberate, and that classification can also trigger publication under the deliberate defaulter regime.
Behavioural categorisation frequently becomes the central issue during compliance checks and settlement discussions. Once conduct is accepted or determined to be deliberate and the statutory threshold is met, the risk extends beyond the financial settlement. Public naming becomes a realistic possibility.
3. What Information Is Published?
Where the statutory conditions are met, HMRC publishes details on the government website. The information typically includes the name of the business or individual, the address at the time of default, the nature of the default, the amount of tax understated and the penalty imposed.
Publication generally remains visible for twelve months from the date of listing. During that period, the information is publicly accessible and searchable.
For trading businesses, the commercial consequences can extend beyond the publication period. Suppliers, customers, lenders and regulators may rely on publicly available compliance information when assessing risk.
4. How the Regime Fits Within Wider Tax Enforcement
The publication regime forms part of HMRC’s wider compliance framework aimed at reducing the tax gap. It operates alongside civil penalty investigations, criminal tax fraud proceedings and the corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are not the same. Avoidance involves arrangements intended to reduce tax liability within the law, although HMRC may challenge them. Evasion involves dishonest non-payment of tax and can result in civil penalties, criminal liability and publication under the deliberate defaulter rules.
Where HMRC concludes that conduct amounts to deliberate non-compliance, financial settlement is not the only consequence. Public naming becomes a separate and material risk factor for business owners and directors.
Section B: HMRC Whistleblower Reward Scheme Strengthens in April 2026
Alongside the publication regime, HMRC has strengthened its approach to whistleblower intelligence. The revised reward framework is designed to encourage individuals to report serious tax evasion and high-value tax avoidance that leads to significant recovery of unpaid tax. As such, businesses are set to face increased exposure not only from routine enquiries but also from internal and third-party reporting.
1. What the Reward Scheme Covers
HMRC invites reports of serious tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance arrangements through its official reporting channels. The strengthened scheme applies where information provided leads to the recovery of substantial unpaid tax.
The current guidance indicates that the scheme targets cases involving at least £1.5 million of tax loss. It is aimed primarily at complex, high-value non-compliance rather than minor errors or routine disputes.
The regime applies to information relating to companies, partnerships and individuals. It is not restricted to UK-resident reporters.
2. How Rewards Are Calculated
Where HMRC considers that the information materially contributed to the recovery of tax, it may pay a reward calculated as a percentage of the amount collected.
- The indicative range is between 15% and 30% of the tax recovered
- The percentage applies to tax collected, not to penalties or interest
- Payment is discretionary and not guaranteed
There is no automatic entitlement to payment. HMRC assesses the quality, originality and usefulness of the information. If the intelligence was already known to HMRC, or did not significantly advance an investigation, a reward may be refused.
Anonymous reporting is possible. However, a person seeking a reward would need to identify themselves to HMRC at some stage to receive payment.
3. What Happens When Someone Reports a Business?
When HMRC receives a report of tax evasion or serious avoidance, it assesses the credibility and relevance of the information. It may compare the intelligence against existing compliance data, risk indicators and ongoing enquiries.
If HMRC considers the information actionable, it may open a civil enquiry, conduct a compliance check or, in more serious cases, begin a criminal investigation.
The subject of the report is not informed of the whistleblower’s identity. HMRC does not confirm whether a report has been made unless formal compliance action begins.
For businesses, this introduces an additional risk channel. Disgruntled employees, former partners, competitors or suppliers may provide information directly to HMRC where they believe tax fraud or evasion has occurred.
4. Interaction with the Name and Shame Regime
The whistleblower reward scheme and the deliberate defaulter publication rules operate independently but can converge in practice.
Information provided under the reward scheme may lead to a civil investigation. If HMRC concludes that deliberate behaviour occurred and a qualifying penalty is imposed, publication under the name and shame regime becomes possible once the penalty is final.
The strengthened reward scheme therefore increases the probability of intelligence reaching HMRC. Where that intelligence supports a deliberate finding, the reputational consequences can extend beyond financial penalties.
For business owners and directors, internal governance and reporting controls now carry heightened importance. The risk is no longer confined to routine audit selection. It includes targeted intelligence supplied by individuals with potential financial incentive.
Section C: When the Changes Take Effect and Who Is Affected
The deliberate defaulter publication regime is already in force and continues to operate under section 94 Finance Act 2009. HMRC updates the published list periodically once qualifying penalties become final.
The strengthened whistleblower reward scheme has now been formalised in HMRC guidance. It applies to information submitted under the current reporting framework and is active in relation to ongoing and future investigations.
There is no transitional grace period for businesses. Where qualifying behaviour has already occurred and a penalty becomes final, publication remains possible under existing law.
1. Effective Position in 2026
HMRC continues to publish details of deliberate tax defaulters once statutory conditions are satisfied. The strengthened reward scheme applies to reports of serious tax avoidance or tax evasion that lead to significant tax recovery.
The two regimes operate concurrently. The publication framework applies once penalties are final. The reward scheme applies at the intelligence stage.
Businesses currently under enquiry are not insulated from publication if deliberate behaviour is ultimately established. The timing depends on when the penalty position becomes final.
2. Which Businesses Are Most Exposed?
The deliberate defaulter regime applies across sectors. However, practical exposure tends to arise where:
- There are significant cash-based transactions
- Payroll structures involve contractors or complex arrangements
- Offshore elements form part of the group structure
- Historic arrangements were marketed as aggressive tax avoidance
High-value cases are more likely to fall within the reward scheme threshold. Larger corporates, owner-managed groups and businesses operating internationally may therefore face greater whistleblower incentive risk.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are not exempt. Where the financial threshold is met and deliberate behaviour is found, publication can follow regardless of business size.
3. Directors and Senior Management Exposure
Although publication typically focuses on the entity responsible for the tax default, directors and senior managers face indirect exposure.
Reputational impact can affect credit relationships, regulatory permissions, procurement eligibility and investor confidence.
In certain circumstances, personal penalties or disqualification risks may arise if deliberate conduct is attributed to individuals.
Where governance failures contribute to deliberate misstatements, scrutiny may extend beyond the finance function. Board-level oversight of tax risk is therefore a live issue rather than a technical compliance matter.
4. Interaction with Other Enforcement Powers
The name and shame regime does not replace HMRC’s broader enforcement toolkit. It sits alongside civil compliance checks and discovery assessments, criminal investigation powers for tax fraud and the corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion.
A whistleblower report may trigger a compliance check. A compliance check may lead to penalties. A deliberate penalty may result in publication.
The combined framework increases both the likelihood of detection and the potential consequences once non-compliance is established.
Section D: Business Risk Exposure and Practical Implications
The combined effect of the deliberate defaulter publication regime and the strengthened whistleblower reward scheme is a higher visibility compliance environment. Financial penalties remain significant, but public disclosure and intelligence-led investigation now represent parallel risk streams.
For business owners, the issue is no longer confined to whether tax is ultimately paid. The behavioural classification and reputational dimension can be equally consequential.
1. Reputational and Commercial Impact
Publication under the deliberate defaulter rules places a business on a publicly accessible government list for a defined period. The listing is searchable and frequently reported in trade and local media.
Lenders may reassess credit risk, public sector contracts may come under review, commercial counterparties may revisit due diligence processes and regulated businesses may face additional scrutiny.
Even after removal from the list, the digital footprint can remain. Search results and archived references may continue to influence commercial relationships.
2. Increased Internal Reporting Risk
The strengthened reward scheme introduces a financial incentive for individuals to provide information to HMRC in high-value cases. Employees, former employees, contractors and competitors may now view reporting as both a compliance step and a potential financial opportunity.
Businesses with weak internal reporting channels face greater exposure. If concerns are not addressed internally, individuals may bypass management and report directly to HMRC.
In that context, whistleblowing policies are no longer limited to employment law compliance. They intersect directly with tax risk management.
3. Behavioural Classification as a Strategic Issue
The distinction between careless and deliberate behaviour carries heightened importance. A careless error results in penalties. A deliberate finding can result in penalties and public naming.
Behavioural classification is often determined through correspondence, document review and negotiation during a compliance check. Statements made during enquiries, disclosure quality and cooperation levels can influence HMRC’s assessment.
Once conduct is agreed as deliberate, the path to publication is open if the statutory threshold is met and the penalty becomes final.
4. Supply Chain and Group Exposure
Businesses operating within groups or extended supply chains face indirect risk. If a subsidiary, joint venture partner or key supplier appears on the deliberate defaulter list, commercial relationships may come under scrutiny.
Similarly, group structures involving offshore entities or complex cross-border arrangements may attract attention where whistleblower intelligence suggests underpayment of UK tax.
Reputational contagion can occur even where the published default relates to a single entity within a wider structure.
5. Settlement Strategy and Disclosure Decisions
In cases of identified non-compliance, the approach to disclosure and settlement becomes commercially significant.
Early and unprompted disclosure can reduce penalties. Cooperation may influence behavioural categorisation. However, once a deliberate penalty meeting the threshold is finalised, publication risk remains.
Businesses therefore need to assess not only tax exposure but also publication exposure when considering how to resolve disputes.
The strategic question is no longer limited to the quantum of tax at stake. It extends to whether the outcome could result in public naming and the associated long-term impact on brand and stakeholder confidence.
Section E: How Businesses Should Prepare and Manage Risk
The strengthened enforcement environment requires more than technical accuracy in tax returns. Governance, documentation and internal reporting culture now influence both financial and reputational exposure.
Preparation is not limited to large corporates. Owner-managed businesses, private groups and growth-stage companies all fall within scope where deliberate behaviour is established or serious underpayment is alleged.
1. Conduct a Targeted Tax Governance Review
Boards and senior management should assess whether tax oversight is proportionate to the scale and complexity of the business.
- Clarify who has ultimate responsibility for tax compliance
- Review sign-off procedures for returns and filings
- Document the basis for significant tax positions
- Test internal controls around revenue recognition and payroll
Where arrangements involve interpretation risk, the rationale should be recorded contemporaneously. Clear documentation can assist in demonstrating that conduct was not deliberate.
2. Review Historic Arrangements
Businesses with legacy tax planning structures should reassess whether those arrangements remain defensible under current HMRC guidance and case law.
Arrangements previously marketed as avoidance may be scrutinised differently in light of evolving enforcement priorities. If risk areas are identified, proactive engagement and voluntary disclosure can reduce penalties and influence behavioural findings.
Silence rarely reduces long-term exposure where information later reaches HMRC through third-party reporting.
3. Strengthen Whistleblowing and Internal Reporting Channels
An effective internal whistleblowing framework materially reduces the risk that concerns are taken straight to HMRC without the business having the opportunity to investigate and address them first.
Confidential reporting routes should be clearly available and accessible to staff at all levels. Reports need to be assessed independently and without undue influence from those potentially implicated. Outcomes and remedial steps should be properly documented so that the business can demonstrate a clear audit trail if challenged. Individuals who raise concerns should be protected from retaliation, both in policy and in practice.
Where employees believe that concerns are ignored or minimised, the likelihood of external reporting increases. In high-value cases, the availability of financial rewards under HMRC’s strengthened scheme adds a further incentive to bypass internal channels. A credible reporting culture therefore operates as a tax risk control, not merely as an employment compliance measure.
4. Prepare a Response Protocol for HMRC Enquiries
If HMRC opens a compliance check following a whistleblower report or internal risk flag, the early stages of engagement often shape the trajectory of the investigation.
Communications with HMRC should be centralised so that responses are consistent and controlled. Relevant records should be preserved immediately, including electronic communications and working papers. Informal explanations or concessions should not be made before the facts have been reviewed and appropriate advice obtained. Behavioural exposure should be assessed in parallel with financial exposure, since the classification of conduct may determine whether publication risk arises.
The objective is to cooperate appropriately while protecting the business’s position on whether any inaccuracies were careless or deliberate. Early missteps can influence HMRC’s assessment of intent.
5. Board-Level Oversight and Reputation Management
Tax risk warrants board-level attention, particularly where the financial threshold for publication under the deliberate defaulter regime could realistically be met.
Directors need to understand the statutory basis for publication, the conditions that trigger naming and the potential reputational and commercial implications. These include impacts on credit arrangements, procurement eligibility and regulatory relationships.
If publication risk becomes live, technical defence alone is not sufficient. A coordinated approach involving legal advisers, communications planning and stakeholder engagement may be required. The strengthened whistleblower framework and the existing publication regime do not introduce new tax liabilities, but they increase transparency and amplify the consequences where deliberate conduct is established.
For business owners, the practical priority is reducing the likelihood that conduct is categorised as deliberate and ensuring that internal concerns are identified, investigated and resolved before they become external intelligence supplied to HMRC.
Section F: Summary
HMRC’s deliberate defaulter publication regime and strengthened whistleblower reward scheme operate at different stages of the compliance lifecycle, but together they materially increase exposure for businesses that cross the line into deliberate non-compliance.
Financial penalties remain significant. Public naming adds a reputational dimension that can affect credit, procurement, regulatory standing and long-term brand confidence. The risk is not confined to criminal tax fraud. A civil finding of deliberate behaviour can be enough.
The strengthened reward scheme increases the likelihood that serious underpayment comes to HMRC’s attention. Intelligence may originate from employees, advisers, competitors or commercial counterparties. Where that intelligence leads to a deliberate penalty above the statutory threshold, publication may follow once the position is final.
For business owners and directors, the focus should be on behavioural risk as much as technical accuracy. Clear documentation, credible governance and effective internal reporting channels reduce the likelihood that errors escalate into deliberate findings.
In the current enforcement environment, the reputational consequences of tax non-compliance can extend well beyond the balance sheet.
Section G: HMRC Name and Shame FAQs
What is HMRC’s “name and shame” full disclosure policy?
It is HMRC’s statutory power under section 94 of the Finance Act 2009 to publish the details of individuals and businesses that incur certain civil penalties for deliberate tax default. Publication follows once the penalty position is final and the statutory threshold is met.
Who can be publicly named by HMRC?
Companies, partnerships and individuals can be named if HMRC determines that they engaged in deliberate behaviour leading to underpaid tax and the resulting penalty meets the qualifying conditions. A criminal conviction is not required.
What information does HMRC publish?
HMRC typically publishes the name of the person or business, the address at the time of default, the nature of the default, the amount of tax understated and the penalty imposed. The information generally remains available for around twelve months.
What is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?
Tax avoidance involves arrangements designed to reduce tax liability within the law, although HMRC may challenge them. Tax evasion involves dishonest non-payment of tax and can result in civil penalties, criminal prosecution and possible publication under the deliberate defaulter regime.
Can someone receive a reward for reporting tax evasion?
HMRC may pay a discretionary reward where information provided leads to the recovery of significant unpaid tax. Current guidance indicates that serious cases involving at least £1.5 million of tax loss fall within scope, with potential rewards calculated as a percentage of the tax collected.
Can reports to HMRC be made anonymously?
Reports of suspected tax evasion or serious avoidance can be made anonymously. However, an individual seeking a financial reward would need to identify themselves to HMRC in order to receive payment.
What happens after someone reports a business to HMRC?
HMRC assesses the credibility of the information and may open a compliance check or investigation if the intelligence is considered actionable. The subject of the report is not informed of the whistleblower’s identity. Publication under the name and shame regime can occur later if a qualifying deliberate penalty becomes final.
Can a business challenge publication?
Publication only occurs once penalties are final. A business can challenge the underlying penalty through the statutory appeal process. If the penalty is overturned or reduced below the qualifying threshold, publication should not proceed.
How can a business reduce the risk of being named?
Clear governance, accurate record-keeping, documented tax positions and effective internal reporting channels reduce the likelihood of deliberate findings. Early and voluntary disclosure of issues may also mitigate penalties and influence behavioural classification.
Section H: Glossary
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Deliberate Tax Default | A tax underpayment arising from intentional action or omission, such as knowingly submitting inaccurate information or deliberately failing to notify HMRC of a tax liability. |
| Section 94 Finance Act 2009 | The statutory provision that allows HMRC to publish details of individuals and businesses who incur qualifying civil penalties for deliberate tax default once those penalties are final. |
| Publishing Details of Deliberate Defaulters (PDDD) | The formal name of HMRC’s “name and shame” regime under which details of deliberate tax defaulters are made publicly available for a defined period. |
| Deliberate Behaviour | Conduct where a taxpayer intentionally provides inaccurate information, withholds relevant facts or fails to notify HMRC of a known tax obligation. |
| Careless Behaviour | A failure to take reasonable care in meeting tax obligations. Unlike deliberate behaviour, it does not involve intentional wrongdoing. |
| Tax Evasion | The dishonest non-payment or underpayment of tax, which can lead to civil penalties, criminal prosecution and possible public naming under the deliberate defaulter regime. |
| Tax Avoidance | The use of arrangements intended to reduce tax liability within the law, although HMRC may challenge such arrangements where they consider them abusive or ineffective. |
| Tax Fraud | A criminal offence involving deliberate deception to secure an unlawful tax advantage, often prosecuted under fraud legislation or tax-specific offences. |
| Whistleblower Reward Scheme | HMRC’s strengthened framework allowing discretionary financial rewards where information provided leads to the recovery of significant unpaid tax in serious avoidance or evasion cases. |
| Compliance Check | An enquiry opened by HMRC to review the accuracy of a tax return or tax position and determine whether additional tax, penalties or interest are due. |
| Corporate Criminal Offence | The offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion, which can apply to companies where associated persons criminally facilitate tax evasion and reasonable prevention procedures were not in place. |
Author
Gill Laing is a qualified Legal Researcher & Analyst with niche specialisms in Law, Tax, Human Resources, Immigration & Employment Law.
Gill is a Multiple Business Owner and the Managing Director of Prof Services Limited - a Marketing & Content Agency for the Professional Services Sector.
