Category: ICAEW article

PAC launches local authority property investments inquiry

27 April 2020: the Public Accounts Committee has launched a formal inquiry into the risks from English local authority investments in commercial property, and how these are monitored by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The inquiry will investigate concerns about gaps in commercial skills and whether risks are being properly monitored, as well as the potential for big losses following the coronavirus.

The National Audit Office (NAO) reported in February that English local authorities had invested £6.6bn in commercial property over the three years to 31 March 2019, an increase of 1,340% compared with the previous three years.

With many of these investments funded by borrowing, the PAC is concerned about what the coronavirus pandemic might be doing to local authority finances, especially on the £2.5bn invested by councils outside of their local areas.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) plans to question officials from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on gaps in commercial skills in local government, and the extent to which MHCLG formally monitors commercial activity and long-term exposure to risk. The PAC will also ask officials about the Ministry’s response to COVID-19, and what impact the pandemic has had on local government finances.

Commenting on the launch of the investigation Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector at ICAEW, said: “The Public Accounts Committee is right to ask questions about the significant increase in balance sheet risk being taken on by a small but growing number of local authorities and how those risks are being managed both locally and by central government. The coronavirus pandemic will have resulted in significant losses in many local authority commercial property portfolios, adding to the pressure on their finances at a difficult time.

“The PAC also needs to consider the structural issues that have driven local authorities to establish debt-financed ‘mini sovereign wealth funds’ that predominantly invest in one particular asset class, rather than spreading risk across multiple types of investment. 

“Central government also needs to consider how local authorities can be encouraged to invest in infrastructure and other productive assets that will support economic growth and benefit local taxpayers in the long-term, in addition to managing financial investment risks effectively. This will be particularly important if the economy is to recover fully after the end of the pandemic.”

The PAC has put out a call for evidence asking for submissions by Wednesday 6 May 2020.

For further insights during the coronavirus pandemic, please see the ICAEW designated COVID-19 hub.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

OBR: deficit could reach £273bn or more

15 April 2020: a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) indicates that the fiscal deficit could increase to £273bn in 2020-21, but it cautions that this is only one of many plausible scenarios.

The OBR has produced its first analysis of the potential economic and fiscal impact of the coronavirus, based on a three-month lockdown followed by restrictions for a further three months. 

At the same time, the International Monetary Fund has warned that the global economic contraction underway is likely to be the worst since the Great Depression, dwarfing the financial crisis twelve years ago.  

In its ‘coronavirus reference scenario’, the OBR indicates that the UK economy could fall by 35% in the second quarter of 2020, before bouncing back to leave the economy 13% smaller in 2020 than in 2019. 

The consequence would be an increase in the deficit for the fiscal year ending 31 March 2021 to £273bn or 14% of GDP, while public sector net debt could be £384bn higher than budgeted for, reaching £2.2tn or 95% of GDP by the end of the fiscal year.

The OBR says that the economic impact of the coronavirus will derive much less from people falling ill or dying, than from the public health restrictions and social distancing required to limit its spread, severely reducing demand and supply at the same time. That means lower incomes, less spending and weaker asset prices, all of which reduce tax revenues, while job losses will raise public spending.

Once the crisis has passed and policy interventions have unwound, the OBR thinks that annual borrowing could return to roughly the Spring Budget 2020 forecast. However, net debt would continue to be much higher, potentially £260bn (10% of GDP) more than the baseline forecast by 31 March 2025. 

The OBR analysis assumes that increased public spending, tax cuts and holidays, loans and guarantees, and actions taken by the Bank of England, designed to support household incomes and to limit business failures and layoffs, will help prevent greater economic and fiscal damage in the long term. However, it warns that the longer the disruption lasts, the more likely it is that the economy’s future potential output will be ‘scarred’ with adverse consequences for future deficits and for fiscal policy.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) now predicts that the global economy will contract by 3.0% in 2020, much worse than the 0.1% contraction seen during the financial crisis in 2009 and a cut of 6.3% from its previous prediction in January. The IMF prediction is based on a shallower, but longer recession than the OBR’s scenario for the UK. Overall, the IMF believes that the cumulative output loss in 2020 and 2021 from the pandemic could be as much as $9tn.

Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW, commented: “The analysis published by the OBR is not a forecast, but the scenario it presents is pretty startling; making clear that whatever actually happens, the damage to public finances from the coronavirus pandemic will be extremely severe.

“While the OBR suggests that the economy and tax receipts could recover relatively quickly, the additional debt burden will weigh on the public finances for many years for come.”

Fiscal deficit 2020-21: £55bn Spring Budget +£130bn lower receipts +£88bn higher spending = £273bn Reference scenario. Net debt: £1,819bn +£384bn = £2,203bn.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Treasury announces extra £9.5bn for public services

14 April 2020: the Chancellor has increased the coronavirus emergency response fund to £14.5bn to cover the escalating costs of dealing with the pandemic.

Easter Monday saw Rishi Sunak announce an extra £9.5bn for the NHS and public services, adding to the £5bn already included in the emergency package announced with the Spring Budget on 11 March 2020.

This brings additional funding for the NHS and public services to £14.5bn, comprising £6.6bn for health services, £3.5bn to keep the railways running, £1.6bn for local authorities, and £0.9bn for food packages and other support for clinically vulnerable people, together with £1.9bn for the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Altogether, this brings the estimated cost of fiscal measures announced by the Government in response to the coronavirus pandemic to somewhere in the region of £95bn. In addition to the £14.5bn for the NHS and public services, £27bn has been announced in business rates discounts and small business grants, £5bn in enhancements to Universal Credit and housing benefit and £750m for charities. The costs of the employee furlough and self-employed income replacement schemes will depend on take-up, with estimates that these could cost around £40bn and £9bn respectively for their initial three-month terms.

This does not include the effect of collapsing tax revenues and higher welfare spending on the public finances, nor any potential costs from the £330bn of loans and guarantees being advanced to support business. As a consequence, the fiscal deficit this financial year is now almost certain to exceed £200bn, compared with the baseline of £55bn set out in the Spring Budget just over a month ago.

Martin Wheatcroft FCA, adviser to ICAEW on public finances, commented: “This is probably not going to be the last announcement of additional funding for the NHS and public services this year given the extraordinary challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic. 

“It is positive that the Chancellor has made it clear that money will be made available to front-line services as needed, an important signal for budget holders conditioned by a decade of austerity to manage resources carefully, rather than to spend whatever it takes to achieve a critical objective.

“We can and will worry about the bill later, when the need for a long-term fiscal strategy to put the public finances onto a sustainable path will be more important than ever before.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Health Secretary recapitalises NHS with £13.4bn write-off

3 April 2020: Surprise move puts NHS trusts into a much stronger financial position, saving them hundreds of millions in interest payments every year.

The Health Secretary Matt Hancock has announced that he is writing off £13.4bn of debts owed by NHS trusts at 1 April 2020.

These write-offs will save the NHS trusts concerned hundreds of millions in interest each year, providing an immediate financial boost to hospitals across the country. It will also put them on a sounder footing for the long-term, without the need to find cash to repay these debts in the future.

Although the transaction is described by the Government as neutral to the public finances because the loans concerned are all internal within the Department of Health & Social Care, it will increase the £130bn annual cost of the NHS going forward to the extent that interest charges and debt repayments no longer flow back to the Exchequer.

The department also announced that it is introducing new funding arrangements for the NHS with a ‘simpler internal payment system’ to help NHS trusts in responding to COVID-19.

The loans being written off principally relate to borrowing to fund deficits (interim revenue debts and working capital loans) and borrowing to finance shortfalls in capital funding (interim capital debts). ‘Normal course of business’ loans and external debts embedded in private-finance initiative (PFI) contracts will continue as liabilities of the NHS trusts concerned.

The debt write-offs will take the form of a capital contribution with outstanding loan balances at 1 April 2020 converted into equity, adding £13.4bn to the net assets of the 107 NHS trusts affected.

The pressures that the NHS is under from the coronavirus have highlighted the problems with the existing funding model and the Health Secretary has also written to NHS trusts letting them know that should they need extra cash during the coronavirus emergency that this will also be provided as an equity injection, rather than building up new debts.

Martin Wheatcroft FCA, adviser to ICAEW on public finances, commented:

“Although writing off debts owed by the NHS has no net effect on the public finances in theory as the balances are all internal to government, it will have very real-world effects on the ground. By relieving NHS trusts of a significant financial burden, the Government is putting each of them into a much better financial position to deal with the coronavirus and to invest in services for patients.

The news that funding arrangements for the NHS are being revisited is also welcome. Many of these debts arose because of an overcomplicated system of funding that meant that many hospitals were not receiving sufficient income to cover their operating costs. A simpler funding model will make a big difference to the ability of NHS trusts to manage their finances effectively and hence the quality of the health care that they can provide.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Spending Review suspension sensible, but avoid more delays

2 April 2020: ICAEW has called the delay to the UK Government’s 2020 Spending Review a ‘sensible move’ in the current climate, but warned that any further delays pose a major risk to infrastructure projects and economic recovery.

The 2020 Spending Review, scheduled to be completed by July this year, has been delayed to enable the government to remain focused on responding to the ongoing coronavirus outbreak. It is likely that the 2020 Spending Review will now be moved to November to coincide with the Autumn Budget, adding a further delay of at least four months to the process.
 
The last three-year Spending Review was in 2015, covering the financial years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The anticipated 2018 Spending Review never took place and departmental budgets were instead ‘rolled over’ into 2019-20, while the Spending Review in 2019 was also cancelled and replaced by an interim Spending Round that set out current spending by departments for one financial year (2020-21) and capital investment plans for two financial years (2020-21 and 2021-22).
 
Based on the overall spending envelope set out in the Spring Budget 2020, the Spending Review this year is expected to set out detailed financial budgets for each government department for a three-year period (from 2021-22 to 2023-24) and four years for capital investment (to 2024-25), enabling public bodies to plan ahead and get the best value for money for the taxpayer.
 
Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW said: “The latest delay is completely understandable given the huge ramifications for the economy and the public finances of the coronavirus emergency. It makes sense for the Chancellor and the Treasury to redeploy resources to deal with the coronavirus now and to re-evaluate spending plans later when there is a clearer view on the financial impact.
 
One concern is the risk this further delay poses to infrastructure projects, given how important they will be to a successful economic recovery. The need to plan and design infrastructure well in advance means that delays in authorising funding could have a significant knock-on effect to when projects are eventually delivered, and to the boost they can give to the economy. 
 
The Chancellor should give some thought to providing assurances to departments about capital funding in 2021-22 and 2022-23 so that they have sufficient certainty to green-light projects sooner rather than later.
 
The Chancellor should also consider the Government’s approach to Spending Reviews. There are many arguments in favour of holding five-year Spending Reviews every three years, rather than three-year Spending Reviews every five years.”
 
For more information:

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Government watchdog sounds COVID-19 fraud risk alarm

31 March 2020: the Government Counter Fraud Function has published new guidance for public bodies about fraud arising from the actions taken to address the coronavirus emergency. 

Unfortunately, fraud is inevitable given the relaxation in scrutiny over emergency payments made by public bodies to support individuals and businesses affected by the current crisis. But there are still steps that can be taken to minimise fraud where possible.
 
The guidance sets out five overarching principles for public bodies to apply to counter potentially fraudulent activity in delivering emergency programmes:
 
1.     Accept that there is an inherently high risk of fraud, and it is very likely to happen.
 
2.     Integrate fraud control resources into policy and process design.
 
3.     Work together with fraud control teams to implement low friction counter measures to prevent fraud risk where possible.
 
4.     Carry out targeted post-event assurance to look for fraud, ensuring access to fraud investigation resources.
 
5.     Revisit the control framework when emergency payments shift into longer term services – especially where large sums are invested.
 
The guidance is intended to support government departments, local authorities and other public bodies to move quickly to provide financial support to those affected, whilst doing what is possible to address the inevitable frauds that will be committed. It recommends ensuring that consistent data is collected from those applying and receiving payments and putting in place robust claw back agreements to recover funds that are paid out incorrectly.
 
The advice makes clear that public bodies will need to put in place post-event assurance processes to review the payments being made now. 
 
Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW, commented: “It is important that public bodies move as quickly as they can to support individuals and businesses in distress but despite that, there is a lot they can do to minimise the potential for fraud. Where possible, implementing existing fraud prevention measures in the time available, combined with extensive post-transaction scrutiny and assurance to be carried out later.
 
The need for appropriate open access provisions, allowing public bodies to verify transactions at a later date and recover fraudulent claims where possible, will be an important component to both deferring fraud in the first place as well as detecting fraud afterwards.”

For the latest news and guidance on the ongoing impact of COVID-19 for businesses and accountants, visit ICAEW’s dedicated Coronavirus Hub.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

IFS: deficit to triple as budget contingency increases

30 March 2020: the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has suggested that the budgeted fiscal deficit for the financial year starting 1 April 2020 of £55bn could more than triple to £177bn due to the coronavirus pandemic.

In a new publication, the economic research institute also stated that there is a chance the 2020-21 deficit could end up exceeding £200bn.

The Chancellor has already stopped reporting financial estimates for a series of emergency measures, such as the funding of 80% of pay for furloughed workers and support for self-employed workers, incurring tens of billions of public money to keep an economy going whilst in lockdown.

The Contingencies Fund Act 2020 (passed by Parliament on 25 March 2020 alongside the Coronavirus Act 2020), increases the amount available for contingencies from a limit of 2% of spending authorised by Parliament in the preceding financial year to a limit of 50%. In effect, this gives the Chancellor the power to spend an additional £266bn in 2020-21 over and above spending plans already announced, a substantial increase from the £11bn that would have been available otherwise.

The IFS’s estimate assumes that a 5% contraction in the economy would reduce tax revenues by somewhere in the region of £80bn in 2020-21, albeit this would be offset by savings in interest costs following the reduction in the base rate to 0.1% and quantitative easing operations by the Bank of England.

Fiscal measures include the £12bn emergency package announced on the day of the Budget and the £20bn announced on 17 March, together with an estimate by the IFS of £18bn for further measures announced up until 25 March 2020.

The effect on the public finances estimated by the IFS is summarised in the table below.

Estimate of coronavirus revisions to the Spring Budget 2020

Financial year 2020-21Spring Budget
£bn		Economic contraction
£bn		Fiscal measures
£bn
Revised
£bn
Taxes and other income873(80)(22)771
Total managed expenditure(928)8(28)(948)
Fiscal deficit(55)(72)(50)(177)
% of GDP2.4%+3.4%+2.3%8.1%

Source: HM Treasury, Spring Budget 2020; IFS, estimates of economic contraction and fiscal measures to date, 26 March 2020; ICAEW, rough estimate of the split of fiscal measures between waiving tax and additional spending.

The IFS analysis of fiscal measures includes £10bn for the 80% job retention credit for employed workers (for which the IFS have assumed a 10% take-up), but it was prepared for the announcement of support for the self-employed. This could add another £9bn to the deficit for 2020-21.

The IFS has not included the risk of bad debts on the Government’s £330bn programme of financial guarantees and business loans or on the £30bn of second quarter deferred VAT payments. There is also no cost provision for the exposure to additional bank financing and corporate bond purchases by the Bank of England that is being guaranteed by HM Treasury.

Altogether, this would increase the deficit to £177bn, or 8.1% of GDP based on a 5% smaller economy, before taking account of the support package announced for the self-employed. The prospect of further fiscal measures in the weeks and months to come, combined with the risks from loans and guarantees, means that the prospect of a deficit in excess of £200bn is looking increasingly likely.

For more information

  • For the latest news and guidance on the ongoing impact of COVID-19 for businesses and accountants, visit ICAEW’s dedicated Coronavirus Hub.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

The £4.4bn cost of preparing for Brexit

17 March 2020: the NAO has provided an analysis of the spending by government departments on preparing for Brexit, highlighting just how significant an exercise leaving the EU is for the government machine.

A recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) on the cost of EU Exit preparations analysed the £4.4bn spent by government departments in getting ready for Brexit between June 2016 and 31 January 2020.

The NAO is the independent audit body responsible for scrutinising public spending on behalf of Parliament. In its Brexit report, the NAO identified over 300 workstreams with £1.9bn spent on staff, £1.5bn on building new systems and procuring goods and services, £0.3bn on external advice, and £0.6bn in other costs.

Over half of the costs were incurred by three departments, with £871m, £803m, £748m spent respectively by DEFRA, the Home Office and HMRC. This included preparation for new international trade, immigration and customs processes, as well as implementing domestic regulation in areas currently regulated by the EU.

This spending is not the complete total. It does not include costs incurred, for example, of staff only partially working on Brexit or seconded for less than six months, nor local authority preparations not covered by central government funding. It also does not include the net contributions payable to the EU of £8bn during the transition period between 1 February 2020 and 31 December 2020 nor the net financial settlement payable to the EU after that of an estimated £23bn.

The NAO reported that some of the £1.8bn spent between 1 April and 31 October 2019 was spent on no-deal preparation, but that it is not possible to analyse how much of this was wasted (other than the £92m in losses incurred on terminating ferry and other contracts already identified by Whitehall as ‘fruitless payments’ or ‘constructive losses’). This is because many of the preparations will still be needed for when the UK leaves the Customs Union and Single Market at the end of the year.

Spending on advertising and communication amounted to £77m, including £49m spent on the Cabinet Office’s ‘Get ready for Brexit’ campaign, the subject of a critical NAO report in January 2020.

Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW commented: “The NAO has provided a very helpful analysis of the spending by government departments on preparing for Brexit. It highlights just how significant an exercise leaving the EU is for the government machine, with the need for more staff, new regulatory arrangements and new systems and processes across the public sector.

This effort is far from complete, with a huge amount of work still needed to prepare for leaving the EU Customs Union and Single Market in less than nine months’ time.”

The NAO report: ‘The cost of EU Exit preparations’ is publicly available.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Spring Budget 2020: Hey big spender, spend a little infrastructure with me

12 March 2020: Rishi Sunak’s first Budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer provided a sharp change in direction for the public finances – something that will please and surprise many, according to ICAEW’s Public Sector team.

Spring Budget 2020 combined a short-term fiscal stimulus to fight the coronavirus with higher spending on public services and new infrastructure investment to increase borrowing significantly. Fortunately, ultra-low interest rates will keep financing costs down on the more than £330bn in borrowing planned to finance these plans (not including short-term fiscal stimulus measures), with public sector net debt expected to exceed £2.0tn by 2025.

This Budget is particularly important as it sets the spending envelope for the three-year Spending Review expected to be published later this year. With a higher base for spending following the Spending Round 2019 announced by the previous Chancellor in October, this signals an end to the austerity policies of recent administrations. 

Key headlines for 2020-21:

  • Fiscal deficit up from £40bn to £55bn (2.4% of GDP), before coronavirus measures.
  • No significant tax changes beyond corporation tax remaining at 19%.
  • £14bn extra current spending and £5bn extra investment before coronavirus measures.
  • £12bn in tax and spending measures to respond to the coronavirus.
  • Gross financing requirement of £162bn, including £98bn to cover debt repayments.
  • No reflection of uncertain adverse economic effect of the coronavirus on tax revenues.

Key headlines for the four subsequent years to 2024-25:

  • Fiscal deficit of £62bn (2.5% of GDP) on average over the subsequent four years.
  • Tax policy measures to generate an additional £7bn per year.
  • Extra current spending of £27bn a year and extra investment of £19bn a year.
  • Gross financing requirement of £595bn (£149bn a year) including £315bn to cover repayments.
  • Significant economic uncertainty with coronavirus, global economic conditions and changes in UK trading relationships with the EU and other countries.

The existing plans already incorporated a significant ramp-up in infrastructure and other investment spending with public sector net investment forecast to increase from 2.2% of GDP in 2019-20 to 3.0% by 2022-23. The challenge for the Government will be to deliver and ‘get things done’, especially as capital investment by government departments is expected to increase by 25% in 2020-21 and by a further 35% over the subsequent four years. Will there be sufficient construction capacity and project management expertise to deliver such a rapid expansion and still deliver value for money for taxpayers?

The Budget also contained some important developments in the framework for the public finances, with a specific commitment to review the investment criteria in the Government’s ‘Green Book’ to ensure regions outside London and the South East benefit from the additional infrastructure spend proposed in the Budget. The focus on looking at the effect on investments on the public balance sheet was also welcome with new approaches planned for how to appraise public spending.

One surprise in the Budget announcement was that the OBR did not revise the economic forecasts down as much as had been expected. This was partly because of the economic benefits of higher public spending and investment, but also reflected an improved outlook for productivity. The benefit of this for the Chancellor was that he was able to announce additional current spending on public services, while still remaining within the fiscal rules set out in the Conservative party manifesto.

Unfortunately, the scale of the impact of the coronavirus on the economy is still unclear and so the forecasts for tax revenues may need to be revised downwards, potentially significantly, in the Autumn Budget later this year.

Commenting on Spring Budget 2020, Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector, at ICAEW said: “The Chancellor has announced a major loosening of the taps on spending and investment in his first Budget, with a combination of a short-term fiscal stimulus to fight the coronavirus, higher spending on public services, and a major programme of new infrastructure investment.

Those wondering where all the funding for this planned spending will come from may be surprised to discover that the Chancellor has not followed the custom of post-general election tax rises, but instead has decided to take advantage of ultra-low interest rates to borrow more than £330bn over the next five years. Public sector net debt is expected to exceed £2.0tn by 2025, although the Government hopes that this will then be falling as a ratio to the size of the economy.

Nevertheless, it is a Budget that many will be pleased with, even if a little surprising coming from the traditional champions of small government.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

A tax system with 1,190 tax reliefs is difficult to hold accountable

2 March 2020: A recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) highlighted that there were 1,190 tax reliefs as of October 2019, confirming just how complicated the British tax system is.

The NAO is the independent audit body responsible for scrutinising public spending on behalf of parliament. In a report on how HM Treasury and HMRC manage tax expenditures (tax reliefs that are used to pursue social or economic objectives), the NAO focused on the 362 tax reliefs that fall into this category. HMRC has reported that 111 of these reliefs had a combined annual cost of £155bn in 2018-19.
 
The NAO was critical of both HM Treasury and HMRC in how they monitor tax expenditures, following on from previous criticism by the Public Accounts Committee in 2018 that HMRC did not know whether a large number of tax reliefs were delivering value for money.
 
The report highlights how some tax reliefs significantly exceeded their original cost estimates, with HMRC not fully investigating large changes in costs. While HMRC has started to assess tax reliefs, only 15 formal evaluations have been completed since 2015, representing just 7% of the total value. In particular, HMRC has only evaluated five of the 23 tax expenditures estimated to individually cost in excess of £1bn a year.
 
A major issue highlighted by the report is a lack of sufficient assessments of whether the behavioural changes or other benefits intended by changes to the tax system are being achieved. Guidance from the IMF states that tax expenditures require the same amount of government oversight as public spending and this is not currently the case in the UK.
 
Poorly designed tax reliefs can skew behaviour in ways that were not originally intended or create opportunities for exploitation or abuse. One example is intangibles relief, which was meant to support innovation. Instead it created multiple opportunities for tax avoidance where taxes were reduced with no true benefit in innovation. 
 
There can also be unintended consequences for the accuracy of company accounts, with financial statement disclosures distorted by the desire to meet the requirements to obtain a particular tax relief.
 
While the NAO comments that HM Treasury and HMRC have started to improve, it recommends the development of a formal framework for designing and administering tax expenditures, and the introduction of a robust methodology for assessing value for money on a regular basis.
 
This call echoes the Barber Review on Public Value in 2017, which called for delivery of better outcomes for citizens, noting that the Treasury has historically placed greater emphasis on inputs rather than outcomes. It commented that a public service is more valuable if taxpayers and citizens believe in it, are willing to fund it, and commit to supporting its outcomes more widely.
 
Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW, commented: “Although this is a fairly technical report from the NAO, it goes right to the heart of the compact between citizens and government. How can we build trust in the tax system if the tax authorities are unable to fully justify the benefits of tax expenditures and confirm that intended outcomes are being delivered?”

Responding to the report, a government spokesperson said: “We want tax reliefs which deliver value for taxpayers and minimise the risk of any avoidance and evasion activity. We will consider the NAO’s recommendations so that we can continue to improve our management of reliefs.”

The NAO report is publicly available here.

This blog post was first published on the ICAEW Insights Hub.