As of December 2014, the LDF has raised £1.023bn, just £44m more than in November 2014.
Despite this, the number of people using the facility has increased month to month, with settlements under £100,000 increasing to 3593 from 3505 in November.
Settlements between £100,000 and £1m increased to 1453 from 1422 in November, while those over £1m rose to 149 from 143.
The average settlement amount also rose to £173,000 from £170,000.
The LDF is an agreement between the Principality of Liechtenstein and HM Revenue & Customs, and will close in March 2016.
It gives UK taxpayers with undeclared funds in offshore banks an opportunity to regularise their tax affairs without criminal prosecution and a penalty of just 10% on tax due.
When the facility was set up in August 2009, its target yield was £1bn. However, the Revenue raised this to £3bn shortly after due to initial popularity.
The number of registrations rose steadily from 2010 to 2012, before jumping 105% in 2013 from 999 to 2053. The number of registrations in 2014 then decreased by 42% to 1199.
Lack of publicity
Peter Carnell, consultant at Sovereign Group, said the facility’s lack of publicity is to blame for its yield struggle.
“What is the point of having an amnesty if it is not going to be properly publicised?” he said. “We should see a steady increase as the LDF amnesty becomes more widely known and promoted; many accountants throughout the UK would still not know what it is.
“If individuals with undeclared funds and assets are not going through the LDF they risk very severe consequences if discovered, which some may consider to be a gamble worth taking.”
He added that the facility’s popularity should be boosted by extensive media coverage of tax avoidance cases, such as HSBC’s high profile scandal earlier this month, which showed it helped wealthy clients evade taxes via its Swiss private banking arm.
In August last year, HMRC banned users of UK employee benefit trusts from the full tax saving benefits of the LDF.
It said the agreement will “level the playing field” after it decided that many EBT holders were using the LDF in a way that was “not intended”, defining the schemes as “avoidance vehicles”.
