COP8 and COP9 investigations are some of the most serious inquiries HMRC can undertake. They are managed by HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service and may involve allegations of deliberate conduct, fraud, or large-scale underpaid tax.
These investigations are detailed, time-consuming, and carry potentially severe consequences. Early action and expert advice are essential to achieving the best possible outcome.
A COP8 investigation applies where HMRC suspects that significant amounts of tax have been underpaid due to complex arrangements, tax avoidance schemes, or transactions—often with offshore or trust elements.
Although these investigations may suggest serious concerns, COP8 does not carry an automatic presumption of fraud. In many cases, if the taxpayer cooperates and provides full disclosure, prosecution is unlikely.
Typical cases under COP8 may include:
Unlike COP9, there is no set format for a COP8 investigation, and each case is handled differently. We can help you prepare a strategy to manage the process, disclose information appropriately, and resolve matters efficiently.
A COP9 investigation is triggered when HMRC suspects deliberate or fraudulent behaviour. In these cases, HMRC will usually offer the Contractual Disclosure Facility (CDF)—a formal opportunity to make a full disclosure within 60 days in exchange for immunity from prosecution.
If the taxpayer accepts and fully discloses, HMRC will generally treat the case as a civil matter. However, if the offer is rejected or disclosure is incomplete, HMRC may escalate the case to criminal investigation.
The COP9 process is formal and invasive, and it can continue over many months or even years. Responding correctly from the outset is critical. We guide clients through every stage—helping them meet their obligations while protecting their rights.
Our client, the managing partner of a chartered accountancy practice, approached us for assistance with a serious tax issue. He had not submitted his own personal Self Assessment returns for 7 years.
He wished to bring his affairs fully up to date but was concerned that:
As he is regarded as a “special category person”, HMRC would view his failure to submit returns as deliberate behaviour (or, in other words, fraud) and would investigate him under COP9.
In that case he would need to report the matter to his regulatory body with a risk of losing his practicing certificate.
His details might also be published by HMRC, and the resulting reputational damage would be likely to prove terminal for his business.
Having been presented with the bare facts of the matter, we set out to establish the story behind those facts. It became apparent that a series of unfortunate life events coupled with episodes of poor mental health had directly contributed to the failure to keep his tax affairs up to date.
We approached HMRC to make a voluntary disclosure on behalf of the client, and at the same time, we provided a detailed submission setting out all of the mitigating factors.
By focusing on the strong presentation of the mitigating factors we were able to persuade HMRC to investigate the matter under COP8 rather than COP9. This meant that:
The client did not need to make an admission of deliberate behaviour.
This was reflected in a lower level of penalty.
He did not need to disclose the matter to his regulatory authority.
HMRC did not publish his details, so his professional reputation remained intact.
Our client, a UK resident who worked overseas during the week, approached us because he had received correspondence from his offshore bank advising that they were obliged to share details of his account with HM Revenue & Customs under the Common Reporting Standard.
Our client knew that he had not declared amounts in that offshore bank account to HM Revenue & Customs and he was now aware that HMRC were about to be told of its existence.
Our client needed to disclose the issue to HMRC before HMRC received information from the bank that could lead to them investigating our client for tax fraud (a criminal offence).
Contracting income of more than ÂŁ700k was paid into the offshore account over the years. In the first year of contracting, none of the income was declared to HMRC in the UK.
From year two, he transferred half of the income to a UK bank account and only told HMRC about that portion of the contracting income.
We applied to HMRC for the Contractual Disclosure Facility on behalf of our client, to disclose the additional tax liability on a civil basis.
We concluded that, whilst the failure to discuss the contracting income was very serious, if the first year was looked at in isolation, there were valid arguments for carelessness on the part of the taxpayer because he was in a new country, advised by third parties, such as the agency representatives and the bank, and he followed their advice.
By distinguishing the behaviour in year one from the behaviour during subsequent years, we successfully argued that careless behaviour applied to year one saving the client a total of ÂŁ170k of tax, interest and penalties, as HMRC were out of time to assess.
Our client was a non-UK resident individual whose tax affairs were subject to a COP8 enquiry initially raised by HMRC in 2019 into a payment which took place in 2007/2008.
The client had been assessed by HMRC in respect to a large amount of income (in excess of ÂŁ500k) which he was clear he had not actually received. The assessment has also resulted in significant interest and penalties and the amount at stake was in excess of ÂŁ250k. This understandably left our client feeling incredibly anxious particularly as the enquiry had been dragging on for some years.
We approached HMRC to suggest that they consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in order to bring matters to a conclusion. We find that this is often a much better option for clients as it avoids the need to attend tax tribunal or similar and often helps resolve disputes more quickly and cost-effectively.
During an ADR meeting held at our offices our
client was able to verbally explain the situation and to address any areas of confusion. Whilst these had already been raise in correspondence with HMRC, dealing with them within the forum of ADR allowed HMRC to better understood the client’s position.
So much so that the ADR resulted in HMRC withdrawing all of their assessments on our client on the day of the ADR hearing – something which is incredibly rare as, even on occasions where assessments are withdrawn by HMRC, this is usually actioned several days or weeks later after HMRC have had time to reflect.
An amazing outcome for both our disputes team and the client!
COP8 relates to complex tax arrangements or avoidance schemes. COP9 is used when HMRC suspects deliberate fraud.
No, but refusing it means HMRC can start a criminal investigation. Accepting and cooperating fully may help avoid prosecution and result in a civil settlement instead.
Yes. With expert support, it is often possible to reach a negotiated settlement. We handle communication with HMRC, helping you present your case clearly and effectively.
Yes. For regulated professionals, a fraud investigation can have serious consequences. That’s why full disclosure, careful presentation, and legal accuracy are so important.
It is not uncommon forCOP8 and COP9 cases to last many months or even years, depending on the complexity of the tax issue. Early engagement can speed up the process and lead to a better outcome and we can help draw matters to a conclusion swiftly.
