Making Tax Digital

[etf]

If Keir is asking questions about say a Fraud in a Fraud Trial and the defendant responds repeatedly confirming what he bought in the fish and chip shop the previous night i.e. nothing to do with Keir's questions, would that be accepted by the Judge?

Of course not, so why is it acceptable in PMQs?

[etf]

Perhaps every questioner in PMQs next week should just ask Keir 'Cod, Haddock or a Battered Sausage?' as a protest. That would make the evening news and flag how pointless the process has been for too long.

[etf]

Reckless describes acting without caution, heedless of dangerous consequences or the safety of others, often resulting in irresponsible or wild behavior. It implies a total disregard for risks, such as in "reckless driving" or "reckless spending". Synonyms include rash, foolhardy, irresponsible, careless, and wild.

You would think with the problems at Companies House, proceed with caution might be a sensible suggestion before unleashing MTD4IT.

Seemingly not at reckless Labour/HMRC Towers.


By FactChecker
18th Mar 2026 19:56
Well that's a novel experience ... I've never before encountered an inverted strawman putting forward an argument:
"the complaint being that the testers have acquired some knowledge, experience and effective comms that the whingers are excluded from" ... really?
[feel free to point me at evidence of that inferred jealousy or sense of exclusion]

Good luck with applying your "knowledge and experience" gleaned from testing when:
a) HMRC keep changing some of the processes (especially those related to anything outside of 'the norm');
b) the software 'specifications' (especially for the actual TR) aren't even fully tested or indeed static (still 'in the sandbox' in many areas);
c) in many cases we (those professionals who've spent/wasted time on MTD IT over the last few years) appear to know more about the topic than HMRC (support or spokespeople) ... and are currently spotting potential 'unknown unknowns' (a state that HMRC refuses to acknowledge).

The purpose of the testing (as seen by HMRC - not as expected by most) was twofold:
1. to walk a relatively few people (having excluded those with anything but the simplest profile) through the most basic steps - from registration to QU submissions - in order to find any truly glaring errors whilst there was (just) time to fix them;
2. to run some 'volume testing' (the aspect that has caused better tested and robust systems to fail in the past) - although the numbers involved weren't large and so had to be 'scaled up' in the stats (which is the obverse of real volume testing).

What it didn't set out to do was to investigate let alone tackle what you might call the 20:80 rule ... the 20% of less common scenarios that cause well in excess of 80% of the calls for urgent support.
These as I'm sure you know are, by their definition, the types of questions that are least amenable to being understood let alone resolved via the AI-driven worldview of support towards which HMRC is trying to drive us.
Hence the need (particularly in the 1st year) for a mass injection of training of HMRC staff, accompanied by channels that make it easy for taxpayers or agents to access that trained resource when a problem is encountered.

And that's not what's on the cards (even in the form of a backup or contingency plan) ... indeed HMRC have publicly confirmed that they have no intentions to go that way, and that the channels for Beta testers will be withdrawn very shortly.
So in a couple of weeks time you will have nothing from which the rest of us are 'excluded' - and (admittedly IMHO) won't have gained much from your involvement in the Pilot/Beta phase that the rest of us can't get in a matter of minutes.

The big question (which is where the thread started before you tried to send it on a different course) is how will the majority of taxpayers (unrepresented or otherwise) cope with MTD IT ... given the absence or poor quality (take your pick) of a properly trained & dedicated Helpline service?

[etf]

Chris Downing [of SAGE...sell..sell..sell] : The legislation says clients should be registered by the beginning of April.

By richard thomas
28th Mar 2026 11:13
Quite. Where did the idea that the law requires registration come from, Chris?

[etf]

By EasyMTD
1st Mar 2026 11:10
The API and associated documentation is perhaps the worst I have ever seen in my many years of development. Lack of logic, inconsistencies galore, poorly written, poor structured, the list goes on. It has been a head-scratching minefield to work with, and there are endpoints that still only work in sandbox not live.

To top it off, the HMRC Software Development Support Team, are extremely slow to respond to anything. More than a week to get this response: "Thank you for reaching out. I wanted to extend my apologies for any inconvenience this might cause. We are currently navigating through a substantial volume of queries. Rest assured, we are doing our utmost to respond to everyone as swiftly as possible. Your patience and understanding are greatly appreciated, and we will get back to you as soon as we can."

And to top that off, getting approval for software takes months. We applied for production credentials end of January, and here we are end of March and still nothing!

I was upbeat months ago about MTD for Income Tax (perhaps the only person to feel that way), but now, not at all.

Heads should definitely role somewhere in HMRC for this madness.

Problem is, in time those in charge will probably be rewarded with lucrative gigs elsewhere....Sir Keir/Labour this is happening on your watch. Wilfred Frost had MP Murray on his show....how about a question....'how is MTD4IT going?'

I also wonder how the budget is spiralling.

[etf]

By EasyMTD
1st Mar 2026 11:10
The API and associated documentation is perhaps the worst I have ever seen in my many years of development. Lack of logic, inconsistencies galore, poorly written, poor structured, the list goes on. It has been a head-scratching minefield to work with, and there are endpoints that still only work in sandbox not live.

To top it off, the HMRC Software Development Support Team, are extremely slow to respond to anything. More than a week to get this response: "Thank you for reaching out. I wanted to extend my apologies for any inconvenience this might cause. We are currently navigating through a substantial volume of queries. Rest assured, we are doing our utmost to respond to everyone as swiftly as possible. Your patience and understanding are greatly appreciated, and we will get back to you as soon as we can."

And to top that off, getting approval for software takes months. We applied for production credentials end of January, and here we are end of March and still nothing!

I was upbeat months ago about MTD for Income Tax (perhaps the only person to feel that way), but now, not at all.

Heads should definitely role somewhere in HMRC for this madness.

J-P Marks (HMRC) said this:

The programme has developed robust delivery and contingency plans, with progress monitored by MTD’s Programme Board and HMRC’s Executive Committee. The programme’s leadership, supported by delivery partners, have the skills and experience required to deliver the programme’s outcomes.  The programme has introduced modern programme management practices to continuously improve delivery, including multi-functional teams and re-invigorating relationships with external stakeholders through a co-creation approach.

Who should we believe?

[etf]

Yesterday's Money Box Live: Making Tax Digital Guide

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002tbpn

[etf]

The hole MPs and HMRC are digging is getting deeper and deeper. All this cost and complexity which Labour has already admitted is not worth it for Companies for questionable benefit. No wonder the HMRC official on Money Box Live had a dry throat...he has some idea of what is coming.

Replying to richard thomas:

By kevinringer
04th Apr 2026 09:18
Thanks Richard. It's more of a mess than I feared, though perhaps not unexpected given HMRC have had a full 10 years to make a real mess of it. I guess none of this was anticipated in 2015 when mandation was supposed to start in 2017, because HMRC expected to have the system 100% running and there'd be no need for exemptions.

[etf]

Two tier Keir's Labour:

Companies-MTD plans scrapped

Little business-You can have the following:

Increased Administrative Burden: Critics, including some accountants, argue that requiring 4 quarterly updates and a final submission creates a significant, unnecessary burden on small businesses.

Cost of Compliance: Businesses will face costs for software subscriptions and potentially higher accountant fees for more frequent filing.

Tight Timelines & Complexity: Despite the delay, many feel the system is complex, and the transition for those currently using manual methods is daunting.

HMRC System Reliability: Concerns persist regarding HMRC's capacity to handle the high volume of data and whether their systems will be fully ready.

[etf]

A post from accountingweb...time for Age Concern to get involved.

Labour with the help of Trump are tanking the UK economy and HMRC who haven't coped with their workload for well over a decade are already showing signs of strain in the new MTD arena.

185K signed up to MTD
700K yet to sign up?

For HMRC that must look like success.

https://www.accountancydaily.co/only-185k-signed-making-tax-digital

Are HMRC just ignoring the claims for exclusion? Only one of my clients has had a reply, agreed.

But 14 are still waiting. That includes the only client that I phoned up for on 10th February. The 'promise' was reply in 28 days. So what happened to my reply?

One of the bookkeepers that we talk to tried to get a 90 year old lady excluded, but HMRC refused.