Making Tax Digital

[etf]

Exhibit R:

By kevinringer
21st Jul 2026 12:03
You're quite right. A true pilot would test a representative sample of taxpayers including the digitally challenged, and those that avoid contact with HMRC. Unless HMRC pilots with all types of "customer", the pilot will end up only testing for the type of "customer" that willingly engaged with HMRC for the pilot, which I understand at one point consisted of only 9 taxpayers. That represents 0.0003% of 2.9 million taxpayers who are expected to be mandated for MTD; absolutely not a representative sample. HMRC failed to run a true pilot, therefore I shouldn't be surprised that submissions are failing.

I recall back in 2016 HMRC stated they expected 400,000 taxpayers to volunteer for the pilot in 2017. After running the pilot for 5 years, by January 2022 the number in the pilot had reduced to 9. That was a result: it told HMRC that the pilot had failed. But instead of accepting the pilot had failed and abandoning MTD, HMRC turned a blind eye and pushed on. If HMRC had been a commercial organisation, MTD would have been abandoned. But it's as if MTD had taken on a life of its own and HMRC felt they had to make it happen no matter how much it is watered down and the original aims abandoned.

[etf]

Exhibit S:

By Rob Swan
22nd Jul 2026 10:38
It seems (from various reports on AWeb) that the introduction of MTD and the (associated) migration of data within HMRC is not exactly going as smoothly as it should.

Wonder how long before HMRC's self imposed data 'garbaging' - that's bound to become a thing before too long! - renders more than MTD effectively useless.

Given the declining standards and blatant unprofessionalism across government in recent years, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

"Tax rates to 'zero' Mr. Healey."

[etf]

Exhibits T & U:

By Fiona Fraser
21st Jul 2026 13:38
I have 3 clients today where the information on the agent services accounts and the clients gateway don't agree with what is on the HMRC side.
Nightmare and such a waste of time for everyone!
Heaven help us


Replying to FionaFraser:

By kevinringer
22nd Jul 2026 09:27
We've got dozens. Turns out HMRC has the wrong date of birth for most of them; we've been putting the right date of birth on the Tax Return for years, but HMRC has ignored it. HMRC have told us to send them evidence of the correct date of birth, but we've not got time for that, so we'll sign them up with the wrong date of birth. Helpfully, when we phoned HMRC to ask them what the problem was, they told us the wrong info over the phone. It would have been more helpful if HMRC just accepted the correct information over the phone.

By FactChecker
22nd Jul 2026 14:32
"set phasers to stun Mr. Sulu"
[although I gather that phasers have settings all the way up to 'dissipation' - which might be more appropriate in every sense of that word?]

[etf]

Has HMRC publicly apologised for going too early using untested systems?.....is anyone in Government aware there are problems?....is Martin Lewis still interested in such matters having made his millions?

As detailed in the NRCGT thread, HMRC are adept at attempting to silence bad news.

Exhibit W:

By FactChecker
19th Jul 2026 19:36
"How many successful submissions are there and what's the proportion that are troublesome? Of course, HMRC will only be able to report on the number of submissions received and not want to acknowledge the pain involved."

There are multiple levels of problem in your (quite logical) aspiration:

1. as you hint, HMRC are unwilling (surely not unable?) to count all the *attempted* submissions (let alone to associate multiple attempts at what is meant to be a single submission);

2. there are at least three levels of 'troublesome':
- a) the most obvious (the submission fails, as is rejected);
- b) the delayed reaction (although submission accepted - a short time later HMRC raise a query which, on investigation, finds a disparity between what the taxpayer believes was entered and what HMRC's system is showing after post-processing);
- c) the trojan horse (submission accepted and both taxpayer/HMRC happy to agree the tax bill - but at some point in the future (potentially after several TYs) it is found that categorisation/treatment of a sub-total was approved even though it was invalid).

My point is that the kind of issues described for developers by NotAnAccountant2 go a lot deeper than 'merely' whether they cause an instant/visible problem for taxpayer or agent. For all the reasons set out, the software* is less complete/tested/stable than it should be (or even than it may appear to be).
[* = the inadequate software is at both ends - not just the stuff you use, but the stuff at HMRC's end - and any statistics from HMRC will only be based on the former]


By paul.benny
20th Jul 2026 10:34
I think we saying similar things - albeit you are going into more detail.

I am somewhat taken aback by the failings NotAnAccountant2 describes. From my limited technical knowledge they appear to build in considerable scope for error - either on validation, causing submissions to be rejected, or later, by mangling correct submissions.

[etf]

Missing Exhibit V:

By Jo Nokes
20th Jul 2026 11:56
Lots of spreadsheet solutions have been suggested on here. Fine if clients can manage them, and agents can pick up what was filed up to Q4 in their tax software, make adjustments and file the final return. What happens to unrepresented taxpayers who do spreadsheets, then find that these programs aren't capable of handling other reportable stuff. Is this an issue (not for us to worry about)

[etf]

Exhibits X & Y


By SimonP
22nd Jul 2026 17:32
Maybe I am missing a trick here and I am more than happy to be educated on the matter.

Clients normally send me their "paperwork" (shoeboxes and Tesco plastic bags have now been replaced with PDF files) once a year for the tax return to be completed but now there will be those "lucky" few who will be sending me similar information - only quarterly.

Whereas I would prepare accounts from the data just once a year, which will still be the case, there is now an additional requirement. As I see it, I only need to note relevant quarterly income and expenses, pop the figures into MTD software and then upload it to HMRC: perhaps a 10-minute job, if my computer doesn't play up.

Since accuracy is said to be unimportant, according to HMRC, why should I be at all bothered to waste my time checking stuff or possibly even amending previous submissions? What's the point? Why should I even care as come tax return time, I shall still complete the normal (100% accurate) annual accounts and file the (100% accurate) tax return?

This is all so utterly pointless. Am I wrong?


Replying to SimonP:

By Tornado
22nd Jul 2026 18:12
This is all so utterly pointless. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong and pretty much spot on.

[etf]

Exhibit X

By Rob Swan
21st Jul 2026 18:39
I'm impressed by the numbers!!

At least 22855 'isues' - so far. And MTD is only just starting to happen. I appreciate the numbers probably go back a few years, but....

Wonder how long before all you MTD'ers are talking your own language: "Had three 21562s and a 19340 today!" Please, keep us all in the loop.

[etf]

Sounds like a farce:

By kenny achampong
24th Jul 2026 16:39
I had the same issue, and wanted to see what figures had actually been filed, but could not find them anywhere on the HMRC MTD account. They just said 'submitted'.

So I called HMRC.

1st one - not sure that he had heard of MTD, sounded like he was googling and talking about self-assessment tax returns, so eventually he transferred me to the specific MTD office
2nd one - he knew about MTD, but same as me, he couldnt find the figures, so transferred me to somebody more senior
3rd one - it took a while but she did find the figures, and when I asked why I can't see them too, she said there were 'issues at their end' and so they are not available. I did mention that surely seeing the quarterly figures was actually the one and only point of MTD. She agreed, but told me not to worry, the quarterly ones 'are just estimates' and the its only the year end final one that counts. ie the annual tax return.

So basically £1 billion up the spout to achieve a big fat nothing.


Replying to kenny achampong:

By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
24th Jul 2026 17:51
What larks. At least they also admit its totally pointless busy work too.

I must admit, longer term I dont see what HMRC get out of this.

They have to police a *much* larger tax system with a much tricker to run system with loads of return, and THREE methods of finalisation. P800, SA, and new untested MTD return.

All in return for a big cash injection which might have helped htem short term, but longer term looks like a massive own goal.

[etf]

Any one having trouble submitting a Foreign Property MTD for IT submission with IRIS Elements?

IRIS elements say they have a few cases like mine where the Foreign Property MTD quarter cannot be submitted/received by HMRC.

[etf]

Andy Burnham may have relocated to the North, but the embarrassment that is MTD4IT continues.....I received my passport renewal in just a couple of weeks...suggest the leaders there are seconded to HMRC to show them how to run a Department. If you do the work you are supposed to and on time you don't get telephone calls.

By Tornado

Laughable MTD Tax Estimates

I usually invoice my clients in March each year and although some do pay on account, most pay on the invoice. This means that quite a lot of money is received in April and May.

My first quarter MTD tax estimate for the full year is over 4 times what it should be and that is without taking into account other income such as pensions and investment income.

This is just crap that is of no use to anyone. Wholesale misinformation.