← Back to imported archive search

SPATA team

Source: WhatDoTheyKnow
Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
Status: The request was successful .
Imported path: /opt/loancharge/imports/wdtk/requests/spata_team

Open original request on WhatDoTheyKnow

Imported text

SOURCE: WhatDoTheyKnow
SOURCE_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/spata_team
TITLE: SPATA team
AUTHORITY: HM Revenue and Customs
AUTHORITY_URL: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hmrc
STATUS: The request was
successful
.
REQUEST_SLUG: spata_team
CAPTURED_AT: 2026-05-19T07:07:45+00:00
PROVENANCE: {"first_seen_at": "2026-05-18T12:55:18", "first_seen_page": "4", "first_query_term": "\"Loan Charge\"", "first_date_after": "2022/01/01", "first_date_before": "2023/01/01", "matched_query_terms": "\"Loan Charge\" | \"disguised remuneration\"", "matched_date_ranges": "2022/01/01 to 2023/01/01", "first_search_url_template": "https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/%22Loan%20Charge%22/requests?commit=Filter&query=%22Loan+Charge%22&request_date_after=2022%2F01%2F01&request_date_before=2023%2F01%2F01&request_variety%5B%5D=sent&request_variety%5B%5D=response&request_variety%5B%5D=comment&sortby=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&page="}

ATTACHMENTS:
- FOI2022_02759.pdf | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/spata_team/response/1982448/attach/3/FOI2022%2002759.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 | application/pdf | 1371892 bytes
- [not downloaded] | https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/spata_team/response/1982448/attach/html/3/FOI2022%2002759.pdf.html |  | 0 bytes

================================================================================
MESSAGE 1 [outgoing]
HEADER: Don Edgley
2 February 2022
Delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
FOI2021/30787 makes reference to the "SPATA team" in an email sent 2nd November 2018  from: (CFO Group) On Behalf Of Holliday, Justin (CFO Group). This is in connection with replying to a letter concerning contractors who used disguised remuneration arrangements and the letter from the House of Lords sent to HMRC on 1st November 2018.
Please would you supply the following information:
1. Minutes from the meeting held by the SPATA team at 3pm (or whenever the meeting referred to took place)
2. Emails from the SPATA team to Jim Harra/Justin Holliday that reference this meeting between 2nd and 6th of November.
3. Finally please confirm what SPATA stands for.
Yours faithfully,
Don Edgley

================================================================================
MESSAGE 2 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Central Team,
        HM Revenue and Customs
2 February 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ref: FOI2022/02759
Dear Mr Edgley,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Acknowledgement
Thank you for your communication of 2 February.
We have allocated the above reference which you should quote if you need
to contact us.
We will arrange for a reply to be sent to you which will either comply
with our obligations under Freedom of Information Act or, if we think it's
an enquiry that we don't need to address under the terms of the Act, let
you know why. If it is the latter we will, if possible, pass it on to a
more appropriate part of the Department for answer.
While we aim to respond to all freedom of information requests within 20
working days, if for some reason this timescale cannot be complied with,
we will, where possible, write to you explaining the reason for the delay
and provide an estimated time for response.
Yours sincerely
HMRC Freedom of Information Team

================================================================================
MESSAGE 3 [incoming]
HEADER: FOI Team,
        HM Revenue and Customs
24 February 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Attachment
FOI2022 02759.pdf
1.3M
View
Download
Dear Mr Edgley,
We are writing in response to your request for information, received 2
February.
Yours sincerely,
HMRC Freedom of Information Team

================================================================================
ATTACHMENT TEXT EXTRACTION / OCR
================================================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT: FOI2022_02759.pdf
TEXT_FILE: FOI2022_02759.pdf.txt
METHOD: pdf_native
OCR_USED: False
PAGES: 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- PDF page 1 ---
If you need extra support, for example if you have a disability, a mental health condition, or 
do not speak English/Welsh, go to www.gov.uk and search for ‘get help from HMRC’. 
Text Relay service prefix number – 18001 
 
OFFICIAL 
 
Freedom of Information Team 
S1715 
6 Floor 
Central Mail Unit 
Newcastle Upon Tyne 
NE98 1ZZ 
Mr Don Edgley 
By email: request-829672-
201c389b@whatdotheyknow.com 
 
Email 
foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk 
Web 
www.gov.uk 
Date: 24 February 2022 
 
Our ref: 
FOI2022/02759 
 
 
Dear Mr Edgley 
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) 
 
Thank you for your request, which was received on 2 February, for the following information: 
 
“FOI2021/30787 makes reference to the "SPATA team" in an email sent 2nd November 
2018 from: (CFO Group) On Behalf Of Holliday, Justin (CFO Group). This is in connection 
with replying to a letter concerning contractors who used disguised remuneration 
arrangements and the letter from the House of Lords sent to HMRC on 1st November 2018. 
 
Please would you supply the following information: 
1. Minutes from the meeting held by the SPATA team at 3pm (or whenever the meeting 
referred to took place) 2. Emails from the SPATA team to Jim Harra/Justin Holliday that 
reference this meeting between 2nd and 6th of November. 
3. Finally please confirm what SPATA stands for.” 
 
I can advise that the acronym SPATA stands for Senior Public Appointees Tax 
Arrangements. This refers to a process put in place following the ‘Review of the tax 
arrangements of public sector appointees1’ in 2012. 
 
Whilst this process has been superseded by other developments in this area such as the 
public sector off-payroll working rules, the term SPATA has continued to be used internally 
as a generic reference to the off-payroll work of the Tax Advisory Service. 
 
The Tax Advisory Service team is part of the Accounting Operations Team and responsible 
for ensuring the Department is compliant with its own requirements under UK tax legislation 
and managing controls to mitigate any corporate risk. The team also provides professional 
advice to the wider business on tax issues and supports the department’s financial controls 
with off-payroll engagements 
 
I can confirm that a meeting with the Tax Advisory Service took place from 15:00 to 15:30 on 
2 November 2018. HMRC does not hold any minutes of this meeting, the outcome of this 
meeting was communicated to Justin Holliday’s private office within the attached email 
annex which falls within scope of your second question. Please note that where information 
constitutes the personal data of officials to a degree which is contrary to their expectation of 
privacy, this has been withheld under section 40(2) FOIA. 
 
1 Review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees (publishing.service.gov.uk)

--- PDF page 2 ---
2 
OFFICIAL 
 
If you are not satisfied with our reply, you may request a review within 40 working days of 
receiving this letter by emailing foi.review@hmrc.gov.uk or by writing to our address at the 
top. 
 
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review you can complain to the 
Information Commissioner’s Office. 
 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
HM Revenue and Customs

--- PDF page 3 ---
OFFICIAL 
EMAIL 1 – 3 ATTACHMENTS 
 
From: 
 
 (Corporate Finance - Finance Operations ) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk> 
Sent: 02 November 2018 16:04 
To: Holliday, Justin (CFO Group) <justin.holliday@hmrc.gov.uk> 
Subject: FW: For Justin : Urgent deadline Mon 5/11 House of Lords question ACTION: HoL Letter - 
follow-up on DR] [OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE] 
Importance: High 
 
*Replied to Ruth et al 
 02/11 
 
Justin 
 
I have just finished the call with 
 & 
 on this and agreed this isn’t a question CFO can 
answer. 
 
As engagers, we are not in any position to check the tax affairs of our customers, and nor should we. 
This role is seen to be elsewhere within the department. 
 
Protocol is place with HMRC Tax Authority treats us (HMRC the customer) in the same as any other 
of its customers. This restricts our access to relevant information under data confidentiality. 
 
 
 
 
 Tax Advisory Service 
Corporate Finance 
1 Ruskin Square, Croydon CR0 2WF 
Tel: 
 
Mob: 
 
 
From: 
 
 (Corporate Finance) 
Sent: 02 November 2018 12:59 
To: 
 
 (Corporate Finance - Finance Operations ) <
.
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (Corporate Finance) <
.
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk> 
Cc: Holliday, Justin (CFO Group) <justin.holliday@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (Corporate 
Finance) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk> 
Subject: For Justin : Urgent deadline Mon 5/11 House of Lords question ACTION: HoL Letter - follow-
up on DR] [OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE] 
Importance: High 
 
 - to confirm I have seen this email. 
 
 please review email and attached for us to discuss at 3pm (this is a 
 space query). 
 
 
 
 
 
Corporate Finance - Finance Operations, Corporate Delivery 
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)

--- PDF page 4 ---
OFFICIAL 
Group Senior Responsible Manager – Worthing 
 
ext 
 
 
From: 
 
 (CFO Group) On Behalf Of Holliday, Justin (CFO Group) 
Sent: 02 November 2018 12:23 
To: 
 
 (Corporate Finance) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (Corporate 
Finance) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk> 
Subject: FW: [ACTION: HoL Letter - follow-up on DR] [OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE] 
 
/
 
 
Can you help here at all? 
 
I have sent through to Rob Woodstock Commercial but now think you may be able to help? 
 
Sorry – very tight deadline. 
 
Many thanks. 
 
 
 
 
 |Chief Finance Officer’s Private Office |HM Revenue & Customs |Room 2C/04, 100 
Parliament Street London SW1A 2BQ | 
 
 
 
From: 
 
 (CS&TD) On Behalf Of Stanier, Ruth (CS&TD) 
Sent: 02 November 2018 10:10 
To: Stanier, Ruth (CS&TD) <ruth.stanier@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Fletcher, Kevin (CS&TD Centre for Data 
Exploitation (CoDE)) <kevin.fletcher@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD Centre for Data 
Exploitation (CoDE)) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD DG Private Office) 
<
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Holliday, Justin (CFO Group) <justin.holliday@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
DL-Parliamentary Scrutiny Team <DL-
NAOParliamentaryCommitteeLiaisonTeam@internal.hmrc.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 
 (HMRC Parliamentary Scrutiny) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Jones, Nick 
(Counter-Avoidance) <nick.jones@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD Individuals Policy, Income 
Tax) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD Centre for Data Exploitation (CoDE)) 
<
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (Counter-Avoidance) 
<
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD Centre for Data Exploitation (CoDE)) 
<
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Aiston, Mary (WMBC) <mary.aiston@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
Julie (Counter-Avoidance) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Ciniewicz, Penny (CCG Director 
General) <penny.ciniewicz@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Harra, Jim (HMRC) <jim.harra@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
Bristow, Carol (CS&TD Individuals Policy, Director) <carol.bristow@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: [ACTION: HoL Letter - follow-up on DR] [OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE] 
 
*Forwarded to Rob 
 
 too) for urgent attention 
 02/11 
 
Justin/private office (Carol Bristow now copied in on the DR query) 
 
This is a further follow up on the HoL Finance Bill sub-committee hearing Ruth and Theresa 
Middleton attended last week. 
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2) 40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2) 40(2)
40(2)

--- PDF page 5 ---
OFFICIAL 
 
Can we have clarification on this question from the CFO perspective on what we can/should say on 
this question raised by Lord Forsyth in the attached letter: 
 
1) Whether any current or former HMRC contractors have used Disguised Remuneration 
(DR) schemes 
 
As you can see below there has been some discussion about taxpayer confidentiality in terms of 
what HMRC discloses here (and whether we have this information that enables us to answer the 
question). My understanding is that engagers of contractors will not know if contractors are using a 
DR scheme. 
 
Related to this, earlier in the chain, 
 
 has flagged that the SPATA data might help in the 
response on contractors and that this is a Finance lead. 
 
I have attached recent briefing on off payroll (3rd attachment). This is distinct from DR and therefore 
does not cover it, but it does set out the numbers of contractors engaged by HMRC with reference 
to HMRC’s annual report. 
 
Grateful for the Finance view/cleared lines asap please, given the deadline to respond of 5th 
November. 
 
Thanks 
 
 
 
Private Secretary to Ruth Stanier, Director General for Customer Strategy & Tax Design | HMRC | 
Room 2C/23, 100 Parliament Street, London, SW1A 2BQ | Tel: 
 
 
 
From: Stanier, Ruth (CS&TD) 
Sent: 02 November 2018 07:42 
To: Fletcher, Kevin (CS&TD Centre for Data Exploitation (CoDE)) <kevin.fletcher@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD Centre for Data Exploitation (CoDE)) <
.
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD DG Private Office) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 
 (HMRC Parliamentary Scrutiny) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Jones, Nick 
(Counter-Avoidance) <nick.jones@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD Individuals Policy, Income 
Tax) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD Centre for Data Exploitation (CoDE)) 
<
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (Counter-Avoidance) 
<
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (CS&TD Centre for Data Exploitation (CoDE)) 
<
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Aiston, Mary (WMBC) <mary.aiston@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; 
 
 (Counter-Avoidance) <
@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Ciniewicz, Penny (CCG Director 
General) <penny.ciniewicz@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Holliday, Justin (CFO Group) 
<justin.holliday@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>; Harra, Jim (HMRC) <jim.harra@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk> 
Subject: Re: [ACTION: HoL Letter - follow-up on DR] [OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE] 
 
I am uncomfortable citing taxpayer confidentiality in not answering whether we have used 
contractors paid by DR. Don't we need to address this from a corporate perspective? Do we know 
the answer to the question? 
Ruth 
 
Ruth Stanier | Director General, Customer Strategy & Tax Design | HM Revenue & Customs | Mob. 
 | Sent by BlackBerry 
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)
40(2)

--- PDF page 6 ---
OFFICIAL

--- PDF page 8 ---
4.8 
Public Accounts Committee Hearing 
 
HMRC Performance 17-18 
 
Wednesday 5 September 2018 
 
Page 2 of 2 
Date16/08/18 
Version No. 2.0 
 
• There were no off payroll engagements in HMRC for Board members, 
or senior officials with significant financial responsibility. There was one 
interim Board member level engagement in VOA. The appointment 
was approved by the VOA’s Accounting Officer and lasted for just over 
4 months. The role is now undertaken by a permanent employee again. 
 
Key message(s): 
• In response to the intermediaries legislation reforms (known as IR35), 
effective from 6 April 2017, we have reviewed all of our contracts with 
suppliers, individual working practices for our contractors and the way 
in which we engage off-payroll people. 
• These reforms applied to public sector bodies and moved the obligation 
to determine tax status from contractor to the engaging department. 
• We have determined the employment status of all of our contractors 
and have conveyed the IR35 status views to our suppliers. 
• HMRC, as a public sector employer and engager of services, is 
compliant with the reforms to the IR35 legislation. This has been 
evidenced through reviews of our IR35 processes and governance by 
our Internal Audit function and by HMRC in its role as the tax authority. 
• Overall, contingent labour numbers have decreased as programmes 
(Columbus) come to an end and more effective outcome based service 
contracts are used.

--- PDF page 9 ---
Information is available in large print, audio and Braille formats. 
Text Relay service number – 18001 
 
 
Ruth Stanier 
Director General 
Customer Strategy and Tax Design 
The Rt Hon. the Lord Forsyth of Drumlean 
Chair, House of Lords Economic Affairs Finance Bill 
Sub-Committee 
House of Lords 
London 
SW1A 1AA 
100 Parliament Street 
London 
SW1A 2BQ 
 
 
Tel 
 03000 544855 
Email ruth.stanier@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk 
31 October 2018 
Dear Lord Forsyth, 
 
Draft Finance Bill 2018 
 
I am writing to thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the House of Lords 
Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee on the Draft Finance Bill 2018. You 
requested some further information, and our responses are set out below. 
 
Making Tax Digital for Business 
 
The Committee requested a full list of organisation types that will be given a six month 
deferral to mandatory MTD for VAT. 
 
The six month deferral will apply to around 3.5% of mandated customers who fall into 
one (or more) of the following categories: trusts, ‘not for profit’ organisations that are 
not set up as a company, VAT divisions, VAT groups, those public sector entities 
required to provide additional information on their VAT return (Government 
departments, NHS Trusts), local authorities, public corporations, traders based 
overseas, those required to make payments on account and annual accounting 
scheme users. 
 
The Committee requested the working behind the average cost figures, including the 
full expected distribution of costs for organisations in different situations. 
 
We published an updated Statement of Impacts on 1 December 2017. We can provide 
more information about the underlying segmentation data on administrative burdens 
and benefits to business. This is not available in an accessible format that we can

--- PDF page 10 ---
2 
 
readily share this week, but we can provide a detailed response on this point within 
the next two weeks. Further information about how we approached the impact 
assessment is at Annex A. 
 
Customer compliance 
 
I can confirm that HMRC is assessing all the evidence collected by your Committee. 
Our approach is also being informed by discussion with external groups, including at 
HMRC’s Compliance Reform Forum. The Chartered Institute of Taxation, who are 
members of the Forum, have been invited to discuss the issues and examples they 
have raised with you there. We will also continue to engage with other stakeholders. 
In addition, HMRC’s Board is establishing a Customer Experience Sub-Committee to 
strengthen oversight. 
 
The Committee asked how many settlements have been agreed over 5 years, and for 
a more detailed breakdown of the terms on which the first 5,000 settled. 
 
In July 2018 HMRC simplified the payment process for disguised remuneration 
scheme users who wish to settle their tax affairs ahead of the loan charge. Scheme 
users who currently earn less than £50k, are no longer in tax avoidance and settle 
before the loan charge arises can agree a payment plan of up to five years without 
any detailed paperwork. 
 
For those who require longer to pay or with income of £50k or more, payment 
arrangements are still available, but we would require more details before agreeing an 
arrangement. There are no minimum or maximum time periods for payment 
arrangements, and we will consider each on an individual basis. 
 
To settle their affairs before the loan charge comes in on 5 April 2019, scheme users 
were asked to register and provide the required information by 30 September 2018. 
To date, over 24,000 scheme users have registered. We have committed to respond 
by 30 November 2018, and are prioritising issuing settlement calculations to give 
clarity to those who gave us the information required by 30 September. These include 
scheme users who currently earn less than £50k, and we are in the early stages of 
processing payment plans on simplified terms for this group. We expect that receipt 
of settlement calculations will give more scheme users the information they need to 
understand if they require instalment arrangements. HMRC is working hard to bring 
all live cases to an appropriate conclusion. 
 
We are not currently in a position to provide a detailed breakdown of income 
distribution across different groups. We expect to be able to refine our analysis as 
more settlement information becomes available. 
 
Budget and Autumn Statement 2016 documents show the expected yield from this 
measure to be £3.2bn by 2020-21, with 75% of that yield coming from employers. Our 
records show that, of those who have settled their case so far, around a quarter are 
employers, and they account for 90% of the recorded yield. The average settlement 
yield for these employers is £525k. About one third of the employers have settled for 
£100k or less and almost one third have settled for £300k or more.

--- PDF page 11 ---
3 
 
The Committee was concerned about HMRC’s powers in respect of ‘Follower Notices’ 
and the penalties that could be incurred. 
 
We wanted to provide some additional context. A person will incur a penalty in relation 
to a follower notice where they fail to take action in response to the notice to give up 
their use of particular arrangements. A person is liable to a penalty of 50% of the tax 
advantage for a failure to take action on time. This can be reduced for cooperation to 
not less than 10% of the tax advantage. Cooperation is in relation to the follower notice 
itself and is defined in legislation. A person may appeal to the Tax Tribunal against the 
decision that a penalty is payable and/or the amount of that penalty. Specific grounds 
of appeal against the decision that a penalty is payable are set out in the legislation, 
and include that it was reasonable in all the circumstances for the person not to take 
action to remove the tax advantage. 
 
I hope that this further information is helpful. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
 
Ruth Stanier 
Director General, Customer Strategy and Tax Design

--- PDF page 12 ---
4 
 
Annex A: Making Tax Digital for Business – further information about the 
estimates set out in the updated Statement of Impacts 
 
The model we use to calculate administrative burdens takes into consideration only 
the costs and savings strictly related to compliance with MTD and meeting tax 
obligations. It does not consider the wider benefits to businesses through improved 
record keeping, better business management and a streamlined, digital experience. 
These benefits may offset wholly, or in part, any compliance costs. 
 
Standard Cost Model methodology was used to estimate administrative burdens 
impacts and steady-state costs. To estimate savings and costs, the VAT population 
with turnover above £85,000 was initially segmented by size, reflecting the differing 
costs and requirements for small, medium and large businesses. 
 
Each of these groups was further segmented to reflect the differing processes 
currently employed to manage their VAT affairs, anticipated change with MTD and 
their use of agents / accountants. Four segments considered those businesses that 
largely managed their VAT affairs in-house (although adjustments for use of agents 
were factored in), and a fifth segment considered businesses that completely rely on 
agents to manage their tax affairs. The primary segments were: 
 
 Businesses using paper-based accounting moving to MTD software 
 Businesses using spreadsheet-based accounting processes retaining 
spreadsheets, but using ‘bridging’ software 
 Businesses using spreadsheet-based accounting moving to MTD software 
 Businesses already using accounting software 
 Businesses outsourcing all VAT work (using agents) 
 
Savings were estimated by considering the obligations a business fulfils in meeting its 
tax obligations, from recording of sales to submission of a VAT return. Following 
consideration of the current time taken on each obligation and the nature of the 
burden, we ran impacts workshops, in which policy leads, HMRC VAT experts and 
operational colleagues estimated percentage changes in time taken for each 
obligation through operating MTD. Estimates were applied as appropriate within each 
of the segmented groups. 
 
Findings of the workshops were shared and tested with external stakeholders, 
including the independent Administrative Burdens Advisory Board who advise HMRC 
and their Customer Experience Working Group. An optimism bias reduction was also 
applied to the estimated time savings. 
 
Estimated costs were based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis; 
taking account of estimates provided by consultation respondents, commercially 
available software products, internal customer insight and stakeholder discussion. 
These costs were applied as appropriate across the segmented groups. 
 
HMRC expects most businesses to incur some transitional cost in moving to the new 
requirements. Those businesses already using accounting software or who currently 
outsource VAT work to an agent or accountant are anticipated to see lower costs than 
those moving to software systems from paper-based or spreadsheet systems. Four 
primary components make up the transitional costs estimate:

--- PDF page 13 ---
5 
 
● 
training and familiarisation time for both new digital tools and new processes 
(including opportunity cost of lost time to business) 
● 
purchase of new hardware or the upgrade of existing hardware 
 
● 
additional agent or accountancy costs (HMRC will also be providing guidance 
and support to help businesses move to the new processes) 
● 
upgrading existing software and apps. 
 
Estimated costs, with variances applied relative to the segmentation, were calculated 
with reference to both qualitative and quantitative evidence. These variances reflected 
both the complexity of the process change and the complexity of the business.