Making Tax Digital

[etf]

By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
28th Apr 2026 09:36
Interesting you say 30 days turn around on exemptions. Our relevant clients put a bunch in during Feburary, and not a single one has had a response as far as I know. All went from the client in the post.

As for how much back peddling HMRC do on the second tranche, I guess it depends how much of a mess it is when the first wave of keen people have a go in August. We are sitting it out until later in the year until its working first time, every time. I cant see the "why" in terms of taking part in what is really an 'open pilot'.

What is really going to kick the wind out the second phase to is the bigger part of this, ie the year end tax return, as everyone seems very, very quiet about that bit, and if its fully functioning and accruate for most boxes by 5th April 2027, or this is going to fold very quickly as a project. This replacement tax return is a massive change in terms of technology and process, making the quarterly reporting look like a side show.


Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:

By Paul Crowley
28th Apr 2026 15:33
Just three replies so far
All sent in Jan 26 or earlier.
Nothing from Feb, including my call of the 10th

[etf]

Labour/HMRC are very good at inventing/imposing stretching deadlines but very poor ar providing any semblance of a decent service-see prior post.

If I were an alternative political party, I like this following suggestion:

By Nebs
28th Apr 2026 10:36
The length of time for the quarterly deadlines should be flexible, and adjusted and announced every quarter in readiness for the next quarter. It should be equal to the greater of one month or the average time taken for the lowest (longest time) quartile for HMRC to reply to letters in the previous 3 months. If they can't do all their work in a month then why should we?


Replying to Nebs:

By kevinringer
28th Apr 2026 10:48
Excellent suggestion. We've recently had a batch of letters from HMRC capturing box 15/TC2 on 2022 Tax Returns submitted 3 years ago. On this basis this July's QU deadline would be late 2029.

[etf]

Why accountants are using turd to describe MTDIT:

By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
27th Apr 2026 15:37
It would be mighty helpful to staff for firms offering bookkeeping, as you can then synch with normal work which would presumably be monthly or quarterly and then 'press the button'

Right now the only option is to get staff who are currently doing other work to cover it, which inevitably means pulling down skilled staff into entry level "button press" role and making them not do what you actually pay 'em for. Well unless you can find people to work all hours for 5 weeks and then lay them off for 2 months.

Given the zero sense HMRC have had in this whole project and total blindness to what is happening on the ground, the chances of them listening at this late stage have got to be low, but good on you for actually trying to polish the [***] a little.


By Robynthetaxgirl
27th Apr 2026 16:03
Excellent article and a concept we as agents must all get behind. Agent workload stress is a real concern and giving a longer deadline would help this immensely with little downside for HMRC (apart from a small admission that maybe leaving the reporting for a few weeks isn't going to melt the world)


Replying to Robynthetaxgirl:

By FactChecker
27th Apr 2026 16:46
No-one can argue with the practicalities ...
... but that's not an aspect that HMRC are known to prioritise ...
... AND they're not about to admit that "leaving the reporting for a few weeks isn't going to melt the world", when timeliness is all that they have left to 'justify' QUs.


Tornado
By Tornado
27th Apr 2026 16:34
An interesting read which once again highlights some of the mad shortcomings of MTD and yet again begs the question as to WHAT IS THE POINT of this unbelievably badly imagined project?

I think scrapping the project is the best solution for all which allows us to get back to more productive and relevant work.

Thanks (12)

[etf]

MTD for Income Tax - A developer’s Perspective
Just a rant about problems dealing with HMRC support at the moment

Anyone else having trouble communicating with HMRC at the moment?

After the success of our 100PcVatFreeBridge App for VAT, we have created a shiny new MTD for Income Tax bridging App, 100PcMTD.

We finally managed to get production credentials for access to the Quarterly Update API a few weeks ago but are still looking for access to other APIs to complete our product. HMRC claim to have a target 2 working day target response time which is just farcical at the moment.

For example, here is my correspondence record:

API Initial Request Last Update Notes

ITSA Status 2nd April 29th April Yay, finally have access 4 weeks later.

BSAS 2nd April 29th April Said this has been approved, but still no access and no response to email asking why!

VAT 2nd April 29th April Said that they can see sufficient testing and passed on to another team. Still no response.

Assist 27th April Nothing

Calculations 27th April Nothing

How is anyone meant to produce something when hampered like this. It's like wading through treacle.

And to rub salt in the wound, every email and every website login is supplemented with a request for feedback to tell them how well they are doing. If they spent more time actually doing, rather than collating messages stating how [***] they are doing then maybe things could progress a bit faster.

Apologies for the rant. Just had to vent my spleen somewhere.


aligned.tax/intelligence
By aligned.tax
08th May 2026 19:22
I'm here to rant with you!! Very frustrating to say the least. .

And to add to it... Every time you message them they try and guilt you for chasing!!

"We are currently experiencing a high volume of queries specifically relating to Making Tax Digital for Income Tax (MTD IT).

As a result, response times for Making Tax Digital for Income Tax enquiries may be longer than usual...

To help us manage the current volume and respond to all queries as quickly as possible, we kindly ask that you avoid sending follow‑up emails requesting progress updates, as this may contribute to further delays."

Words cant describe it!


Replying to aligned.tax:

By FactChecker
08th May 2026 20:39
Any system whose first response (after keeping you waiting for 5 or 10 or x minutes trying to learn to love the inane 'music' they're playing at, not to, you) opens with:
"We are currently experiencing a high volume of queries" ...

... is tacitly admitting that their systems/facilities aren't working.

It doesn't matter whether they underestimated the number of call-handlers required OR wrongly assumed that the software was so childproof that no-one would seek help OR didn't realise call volumes wouldn't be smooth during each 24 hour period OR ... the facts are they fouled up.

And they don't really care - which is why they're happy to proceed to patronising you!


By Wanderer
08th May 2026 20:47
Welcome to our world!

Waiting 6 months for a reply from HMRC is the norm.

Waiting a year is not unusual.

Waiting 18 months happens regularly.

[etf]

Starmer...'I will not resign and plunge the country into chaos'.

Read this thread...we are already at that point. The potholes are now so bad on the way to work I have to venture into the hedgerow on the opposite side of the road to pass...the road is a potential deathtrap for cyclists and motorcyclists.

[etf]

By johnthegood
09th May 2026 15:00
You are able to email HMRC, and you get a reply within 4 weeks, sounds like a dream to me!

Come back and complain when you get a reply to a letter you sent 14 months ago which opens with, my apologies for the delay.....or another recent one, trying to get a VAT number so you can pay HMRC money and they come back 3 times with exactly the same question worded slightly differently and each time there is a 2 week delay in the response, meanwhile how can you explain to a client that it has taken you over 2 months just to get a VAT number when everything in the real world is almost instant.

I could go on (and on), bottom line is that it has become very very hard to do business with HMRC involved.


Replying to johnthegood:

By FactChecker
09th May 2026 16:38
I don't know if it's a conscious aspect of their approach or merely an obvious result of widespread incompetence, but it feels like the policy-echelons at HMRC have supped from the same spoon as my oft-quoted ex-boss (1980s) of a software company ... who publicly berated my focus on detail by saying:
"You do realise that we only have to be less crap than our competitors?"

Which was sad enough (and followed by my leaving to do it properly with trusted colleagues) ... but of course in the case of HMRC, they don't have competitors.

And so the bar is once again lowered (until it might as well just be on the ground)!

[etf]

Apparently economic growth is the answer to prosperity and yet government after government has lumped red tape on small businesses distracting them from money making activity.

By Tornado
11th May 2026 19:54
The Government are going to place millstones around the necks of some 3 million customers indefinitely under threat of financial and other penalties, based on systems that are not tested and do not work and all this for no other reason than they just can.

The election results show that people are not going to put up with this wholesale bullying and we are already several steps nearer to the MTD project being scrapped in the not too distant future.

The blatant alliance between the Government and giant software Corporations that are already megarich and are destined to become mega mega rich at our expense with the help of the Government, is disgraceful and will not succeed as that would require our co-operation and I don't think they will get that.

That is my opinion, but I can now see the tangible evidence that millions of people agree with that sentient.

[etf]

Sounds half-baked:

By Steven Hallissey
14th May 2026 12:42
The honest answer is: less than many of us would have liked.

The MTD ITSA pilot ran from April 2024, but participation was limited and voluntary. The pilot covered the core mechanics — quarterly update submission, EOPS, and crystallisation (now Final Declaration) — but the real-world complexity of a full mandated population wasn't tested at scale.

Specific areas where testing gaps are apparent:

**Multiple income sources:** The interaction between self-employment and property income within the same taxpayer's MTD obligations was tested, but edge cases (ceased trades, new sources mid-year, fluctuating income crossing thresholds) had limited pilot coverage.

**Agent workflows at scale:** The pilot included agents, but most were handling a handful of volunteer clients, not their full book. The experience of managing 50-200 MTD clients simultaneously — batch submissions, monitoring deadlines across the portfolio, handling API errors for multiple clients — wasn't stress-tested.

**API reliability under load:** HMRC's MTD VAT API had well-documented issues in its early years. The ITSA API is built on the same platform, and while improvements have been made, the real test comes when hundreds of thousands of submissions hit the system around the same deadline dates.

**Software provider readiness:** Not all HMRC-recognised software had full functionality during the pilot. Some providers were still developing their EOPS and Final Declaration features well into 2025. The difference between "HMRC-recognised" and "fully functional and tested" is worth noting.

**Year-end interactions:** The interaction between MTD quarterly data and the Final Declaration — particularly how adjustments, reliefs, and non-business income are layered on top of the quarterly figures — was tested in principle but not across the full range of taxpayer scenarios.

The soft landing for 2026/27 (no penalties for late quarterly updates) is tacit acknowledgment that HMRC expects teething problems. I'd advise treating this first year as a live pilot and building in contingency time for everything.

[etf]

MTD4IT...currently as popular as the Labour party. Good to see Sir Keir has rewarded MP Murray for his thorough interrogation of HMRC which lead to Labour keeping it...both are so out of touch.


By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
14th May 2026 18:01
Its good for Jonathan to put his head above the parapet to address accountants having to deliver this highly complex project and ‘sell’ it to tax payers who do not wish to do extra filings, or pay for them.

I note your central argument that “MTD is fundamentally about changing when and how records are kept, not about increasing the record-keeping requirement.”

The first question I have is, why HMRC think that a ‘one size fits all’ policy in regards record keeping is at all appropriate?

As someone who works in this area in a daily basis, ensuring our clients record keeping is simple, efficient and as accurate as possible, the only thing I can tell you is all business and business owners are different, and what works for one, will not work for another, imposing one system on all, means failing a lot of businesses.

Secondly, why do HMRC think record keeping is not good enough currently?

The last formal review of this area as part of the failed Business Record Check, concluded business records were on average, pretty decent. What has changed for the worse following increased digitisation of records since that was carried out?

Thirdly, what evidence do you have that poor records lead to an underpayment of taxation?

My view from observing this on a daily basis, is that most businesses record income quite accurately, but it is expenses that get missed with messy records. So better records normally mean a lower tax receipt for HMRC. So why this is that in the public interest?

Finally, if this is all about record keeping, why are rebuilding the whole tax return?

This seems to fit none of your policy objectives. The new tax return is a very high risk and complex project, and it seems to be largely redundant given the current return could be used having imported the data (where required) using your existing API’s.

This also adds considerable costs to the tax payer as the current free returns provided by HMRC will not be available. It clearly wont reduce HMRC’s costs as the existing tax return will still be required, moreover there will be operational issues and costs in moving between systems, as most sole trades are quite short run activities.

It seems to me this project is a failure, and it a shame no one in your position has the technical insight to understand how bad a policy this is, or the political weight to do anything about it.[/color]

[etf]

led not lead