Modernising Revenue Scotland's tax administration framework – communications from Revenue Scotland to taxpayers: Consultation Analysis
This publication presents an analysis of responses to the Scottish Government consultation on proposed changes to Revenue Scotland's communications framework. It summarises respondents' views and evidence, sets out the Scottish Government's consideration of issues raised, and outlines future action.
4. Analysis Part B - Proposed Changes to the Use of Electronic Communications
This section of the consultation document provided an outline of the proposed introduction of a “digital by default” approach to Revenue Scotland communications with taxpayers, set out what could be in scope of this and offered commentary on the opportunities and benefits of change and the associated issues that would need to be considered.
The consultation posed the following questions:
2. Do you agree with the proposal for Revenue Scotland to move to electronic communications by default, where a taxpayer has provided a means of electronic communication (except where they have opted out or are otherwise digitally excluded)?
Of those who answered this question quantitatively, the breakdown of views was as follows:
| Response | Total | Respondent breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 5 |
|
| No | 5 |
|
The above question was answered by 10 respondents, with five not responding to the question. As detailed in the table above, the responses are split with five respondents in favour of the proposal and five against. Two professional bodies replied to this question, with one expressly in favour and one expressly against the proposal.
Views in support of the proposal
Respondents who supported the proposal generally considered that electronic communications represent a modern, efficient, and cost-effective approach to engagement with taxpayers.
Individual respondents highlighted that digital communications align with changing expectations and the way many people interact with public services. One individual respondent suggested that a digital-by-default approach could provide a more accessible and convenient means of communication, while another expressed straightforward support for the use of email communications.
Several professional bodies supported the proposal in principle. These respondents highlighted benefits including improved efficiency, faster communication, better record-keeping and reduced administrative burdens. One professional body also suggested that increased use of email could support compliance by making it easier for taxpayers to engage directly with Revenue Scotland and resolve queries promptly.
"Digitalisation of the tax system should benefit both Revenue Scotland and users alike." - Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT).
Digital exclusion, safeguards, and opt-out arrangements
The most frequently raised concern related to digital exclusion.
One professional body highlighted evidence from members working with agricultural clients in rural and island communities, noting that poor connectivity can continue to present barriers to digital engagement. Similarly, several individual respondents expressed concern that a digital-by-default approach could disadvantage taxpayers who lack reliable internet access or are less able to engage with digital systems.
A number of professional bodies supported digital communications by default only where appropriate safeguards are in place. These respondents emphasised the importance of accessible opt-out arrangements, retaining alternative communication channels and ensuring that taxpayers are fully informed about any changes.
Several individual respondents argued that digital communications should remain an opt-in choice rather than the default position. Others expressed concern that opt-out arrangements could become difficult to access or that taxpayers could inadvertently become subject to digital communications without fully understanding the implications.
"While Scotland's tax system needs to move with the times, digital first must not become digital only." - Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA).
Communication methods, security, and system design
Several professional bodies sought greater clarity regarding the forms of electronic communication that would be used.
One professional body emphasised the importance of finding an appropriate balance between email communications and the Scottish Electronic Tax System (SETS), while another representative body highlighted the need for greater clarity regarding the potential use of social media as a communication channel.
Issues relating to privacy, security and fraud were also raised. Professional bodies highlighted risks including phishing, fraudulent communications, and reduced taxpayer confidence if digital channels are not implemented securely. Respondents emphasised the importance of robust security controls, clear authentication processes, and effective taxpayer guidance.
Several professional bodies also highlighted the importance of user-centred system design. Tax representative bodies emphasised that SETS and any future digital systems should be accessible and usable for a diverse range of users, including unrepresented taxpayers, disabled users and those requiring additional support.
Communication with agents and stakeholder engagement
Some professional bodies highlighted the importance of ensuring that authorised agents remain able to access and manage communications effectively on behalf of taxpayers.
One professional body noted that agents generally favour digital interaction with tax authorities but emphasised the need for two-way communication and appropriate access arrangements for professional firms. Respondents also highlighted the value of stakeholder engagement and learning from the experience of other tax administrations when implementing digital-first communication models.
3. Are there alternative approaches which Revenue Scotland could take to facilitate greater use of electronic communications with taxpayers?
Of those who answered this question quantitatively, the breakdown of views was as follows:
| Response | Total | Respondent breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 5 |
|
| No | 4 |
|
Maintaining taxpayer choice
A common theme across responses, including individuals and professional bodies, was that electronic communications should be encouraged rather than mandated.
Several individual respondents and one professional body suggested that taxpayers should retain a choice between paper and digital communications. These respondents considered that voluntary uptake would be more appropriate than requiring taxpayers to engage digitally and would better accommodate differing levels of digital capability and personal preference.
One individual respondent suggested that any digital communication system should operate on an opt-in basis, with efforts focused on improving security and usability rather than mandating adoption.
Encouraging uptake through incentives
One individual respondent suggested that greater use of electronic communications could be encouraged through incentives rather than mandates. Examples included faster processing times, quicker responses to enquiries and simplified processes for those choosing to engage digitally.
Similarly, one professional body highlighted the importance of ensuring that digital services are sufficiently beneficial that taxpayers choose to adopt them voluntarily. The organisation drew attention to New Zealand Inland Revenue's customer-focused approach to digital transformation, including extensive user engagement and system testing.
Phased implementation and user-centred design
One professional body recommended a phased approach to implementation, suggesting that digital communications could initially be used for non-statutory correspondence before being extended to formal notices.
They also emphasised the importance of user-centred design and suggested that any pilot activity should involve users with varying levels of digital capability, non-native English speakers, and authorised agents. Similarly, another professional body highlighted the value of co-design, testing, and user engagement throughout implementation.
Integration of authorised agents and two-way communication
One professional body placed particular emphasis on the importance of integrating authorised agents into any future digital communications system. The organisation noted that many taxpayers rely on professional advisers to manage their tax affairs and that failure to provide agent access could result in communications being overlooked or not acted upon. This was identified as being particularly relevant for Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT), where taxpayers commonly appoint solicitors or accountants to act on their behalf.
The same respondent also argued that any digital communications system should support secure two-way communication rather than simply allowing Revenue Scotland to issue messages. The organisation considered that enabling taxpayers and agents to respond, seek clarification and manage their affairs through the same platform would improve usability, engagement and trust while reducing delays and errors.
4. Do you agree that the definition of electronic communications should provide Revenue Scotland with the flexibility to communicate electronically through a range of measures? Please provide an explanation for your answer.
Of those who answered this question quantitatively, the breakdown of views was as follows:
| Response | Total | Respondent breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 7 |
|
| No | 3 |
|
Flexibility in communication methods
Most respondents supported providing Revenue Scotland with flexibility to communicate through a range of electronic methods.
Several individual respondents considered that a flexible approach would better reflect how people communicate and interact with public services. One respondent suggested that electronic communications could provide a more accessible and convenient means of engagement, while another noted that electronic communication is already the preferred method for many people.
Professional bodies were also broadly supportive. One professional body considered that a flexible definition would help ensure the framework remains adaptable to future technological developments. Similarly, another professional body supported a technology-neutral approach, arguing that broad definitions are preferable to specifying particular communication methods in legislation and can help ensure the framework remains fit for purpose as technologies evolve.
Clarity, safeguards, and communication channels
While generally supportive of flexibility, several respondents highlighted the need for clear safeguards and greater clarity regarding how different communication channels would be used.
One individual respondent expressed concern that a broad definition could allow the future use of communication methods that taxpayers may be uncomfortable with and argued for a more tightly defined approach. Other respondents emphasised the importance of clearly communicating any changes to taxpayers and ensuring appropriate security protections are in place.
Similar to feedback provided in relation to question 3, one professional body highlighted that flexibility should be supported by strong security standards and noted that electronic communications systems should support two-way engagement rather than operating solely as a means of issuing messages.
Other professional bodies emphasised the importance of clarity regarding the communication channels that would be used. One professional body suggested that different methods may be appropriate for different types of correspondence and highlighted concerns about the use of social media for taxpayer-specific communications. The organisation also noted practical challenges associated with the Scottish Electronic Tax System (SETS), particularly for agents and unrepresented taxpayers, and suggested that a combination of communication channels may be required.
One individual respondent also suggested that electronic communications may be appropriate for general information and interaction but less appropriate for assessments or payment demands. This point was also raised by a professional body:
"There needs to be a detailed discussion with stakeholders and clarity over which type of electronic communication will be used for different types of correspondence." - Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT).
5. Are there any specific circumstances, excluding consideration of opt out arrangements, where you consider that the use of electronic communications would not be appropriate?
Of those who answered this question quantitatively, the breakdown of views was as follows:
| Response | Total | Respondent breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 5 |
|
| No | 4 |
|
Digital exclusion, accessibility, and changing circumstances
The most common concern related to taxpayers who may face barriers to engaging with digital services.
Several individual respondents highlighted circumstances where electronic communications may not be appropriate, including correspondence being issued to older people, individuals on low incomes, homeless people, those in medical care, people in prison, and those living in areas with poor internet connectivity. One respondent also raised the importance of ensuring appropriate arrangements are in place where a Power of Attorney is acting on behalf of a taxpayer.
One professional body emphasised that the success of any opt-out model will depend on taxpayers being aware of the options available to them. The organisation highlighted the need to consider at-risk groups and rural businesses that do not use agents, noting that these issues may be particularly relevant in the Scottish Highlands and Islands.
Professional bodies also emphasised that digital exclusion is not always permanent. One professional body noted that taxpayers who are able to engage digitally at one point in time may later experience difficulties due to age, deteriorating health or changing personal circumstances. The organisation suggested that Revenue Scotland should ensure that taxpayers can move easily between communication preferences if their circumstances change.
Another professional body further emphasised that any definition of digital exclusion should remain broad and flexible, allowing taxpayers' circumstances to be considered over time. Respondents generally considered that inclusion should be a key consideration in the design of any future communications framework.
"Inclusion must be embedded as a core design principle for any new model of communication." - Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG).
High-importance communications
Several professional bodies questioned whether electronic communications would always be appropriate for high-importance correspondence with significant legal, financial, or compliance consequences for taxpayers.
One professional body suggested that extra care should be taken where communications relate to legal notices, or other formal compliance matters, and that appropriate safeguards should be in place to ensure such communications are received by the intended recipient.
It was argued by one individual respondent that high-importance correspondence, such as those relating to debt recovery, and compliance matters should continue to be communicated by post.
One professional body also identified circumstances involving vulnerability or sensitive matters, including bereavement and the appointment of a Power of Attorney, where particular care may be required when using electronic communications.
6. What process do you think Revenue Scotland should put in place to enable taxpayers to opt out of receiving electronic communications?
A simple and accessible process
The most common theme across responses was that any opt-out process should be straightforward, accessible, and easy for taxpayers to understand.
Several professional bodies, and several individual respondents emphasised the importance of a simple process which clearly explains taxpayers' options and the implications of opting out.
Some respondents also questioned whether the opt-out would be available to all taxpayers or limited to those considered digitally excluded. One professional body highlighted practical difficulties that could arise if taxpayers are expected to assess and manage their digital exclusion status without appropriate support.
It was suggested by several respondents that once a taxpayer has opted out, that preference should remain in place until their circumstances change. Individual respondents also emphasised that taxpayers should not be required to repeatedly confirm their decision.
"Any process to opt out needs to be simple, tested, co-created, accommodate accessibility requirements and be available to taxpayers and agents."- Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT).
Multiple routes to opt out and representation
Many respondents considered that taxpayers should be able to opt out through a range of channels rather than being required to use a single route.
One professional body recommended that the process should be available through multiple channels, including telephone and paper-based routes. Similarly, other professional bodies and several individual respondents suggested that taxpayers should be able to opt out online, by telephone or in writing.
Respondents also highlighted the importance of making suitable arrangements for those acting on behalf of taxpayers. One professional body and individual respondents emphasised that agents, attorneys, and carers should be able to manage opt-out arrangements where appropriate. A professional body also noted that a digitally capable agent acting for a taxpayer should not prevent that taxpayer from being treated as digitally excluded if required.
Several respondents suggested that taxpayers should receive confirmation when an opt-out request has been processed and their records updated.
Communication, awareness, and changes in circumstances
Several respondents highlighted the importance of clear communications about both the move to digital communications and the availability of the opt-out.
One professional body stressed the importance of clear and prominent messaging explaining when digital communications will be introduced and how taxpayers can opt out. The organisation also noted that taxpayers should be able to opt in or out easily if their circumstances change.
Individual respondents similarly called for extensive publicity and ongoing reminders about the opt-out process. One respondent suggested that annual reminders would help ensure taxpayers remain aware of their options.
"There needs to be clear and prominent messaging about the fact that communications are going to be sent digitally from a specified date onwards and the fact that the taxpayer can choose to opt out of digital communications." - Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT).
7. What measures should be put in place to ensure that taxpayers are aware of the opt out?
Clear and accessible information
Respondents, including professional bodies, emphasised the importance of ensuring that information about the opt-out process is clear, accessible, and widely communicated. A common view was that taxpayers should be made aware of their right to opt out through a range of communication channels and at multiple points throughout their interactions with Revenue Scotland.
Several respondents, including professional bodies and individuals, suggested that information about the opt-out should be prominently displayed on all relevant Revenue Scotland correspondence, whether issued electronically or by post. Respondents, including professional bodies, also highlighted the importance of providing clear guidance explaining the opt-out process and any implications of choosing to receive communications electronically.
"Awareness and accessibility of the opt-out are as important as the right itself, otherwise the choice risks being ineffective in practice." - Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG).
“Every single communication from Revenue Scotland (paper or digital) must prominently display the right to opt out, with a simple link or phone number. The website should have a dedicated, easy-to-find page.” - Individual respondent.
Several respondents, including professional bodies and individuals also emphasised the need for broader awareness-raising activity, including public information campaigns and clear messaging ahead of any changes being introduced.
Use of multiple communication channels
A number of respondents, including tax professional bodies, noted that communication about the opt-out process should not rely solely on electronic channels. These respondents highlighted that some taxpayers may not interact regularly with Revenue Scotland and that email addresses held by Revenue Scotland may not always be current. As a result, they suggested that postal communications may also be required to ensure taxpayers are fully informed of their options.
One professional body expressed concern that a move to default electronic communications could increase the risk of losing contact with taxpayers who have limited digital skills or confidence. They therefore emphasised the importance of using a range of communication methods to ensure that all taxpayers are made aware of both the proposed changes and their right to opt out.
"The risk of losing contact with taxpayers who are not digitally adept is heightened by the switch to default electronic communications." – Law Society of Scotland.
Some respondents, including professional bodies, also stressed that the opt-out process itself should be available through multiple channels and not be limited to digital methods. Suggestions included enabling taxpayers to opt out by telephone, paper form, or other accessible routes, particularly to support those who are digitally excluded or face barriers to engaging online.
One professional body further suggested that taxpayers should receive confirmation that their opt-out request has been received and processed, providing reassurance that their communication preferences have been recorded correctly.
Guidance and taxpayer safeguards
Professional bodies and individuals also highlighted the importance of providing clear guidance on associated taxpayer safeguards. For example, one respondent noted the need for guidance explaining the evidence that may be required where taxpayers wish to challenge a presumption of receipt, in order to ensure a fair balance between Revenue Scotland and taxpayers.
One professional body also emphasised the need for a consistent and uniform approach to communications involving both taxpayers and authorised agents. They considered that, where an agent is appointed, both the taxpayer and agent should receive the same information from Revenue Scotland to reduce the risk of misunderstandings, missed communications or inconsistent records.
In addition, the professional body suggested that communication preferences should be capable of being reviewed where a taxpayer changes agent. It was also noted that taxpayers should have the ability to revisit or amend previous communication choices, including opting back into electronic communications where appropriate.
Overall, respondents generally considered that awareness of the opt-out process would best be supported through clear, prominent, and repeated communications across a range of channels, supported by accessible guidance and wider public awareness activity.
"It should be prominently displayed in correspondence and websites, not buried in small print or hard to find online."- Individual respondent.
8. Do you agree with the proposal that a copy of an electronic communication will be proof that information was delivered by electronic communications, unless there is evidence to the contrary? Please provide an explanation for your answer
Of those who answered this question quantitatively, the breakdown of views was as follows:
| Response | Total | Respondent breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 4 |
|
| No | 6 |
|
Reliability of electronic communications
Views on this proposal were mixed, although respondents more commonly expressed concerns than support. A recurring theme was whether a copy of an electronic communication provides sufficient assurance that the communication has actually been received by the intended recipient.
Many respondents, including professional bodies and individuals, highlighted practical issues associated with electronic communications, noting that emails may be filtered into spam folders, overlooked, deleted inadvertently, or sent to an email address that is no longer in use. Respondents also noted that limited internet access, poor connectivity, disability-related accessibility needs, and low levels of digital literacy may affect a taxpayer's ability to receive and engage with electronic communications.
As a result, several respondents questioned whether proof of transmission should automatically be treated as proof of delivery in all circumstances. Some respondents suggested that additional measures, such as read receipts, message acknowledgements, or portal-based tracking systems, could provide greater assurance that communications have been received or accessed.
Fairness and burden of proof
A number of respondents, including professional bodies, expressed concerns about fairness and the burden of proof. These respondents suggested that taxpayers should not face an unreasonable evidential burden, particularly unrepresented taxpayers, where they believe that a communication has not been received.
One professional body emphasised the importance of a clear and proportionate process through which taxpayers could challenge a presumption of delivery. Some respondents, including professional bodies, also highlighted the need for clear guidance explaining what evidence may be required to demonstrate that a communication had not been received.
One professional body highlighted concerns that, while a provision allowing taxpayers to provide "evidence to the contrary" is important, it may nevertheless be difficult in practice for taxpayers to demonstrate non-receipt of electronic communications. The organisation considered that this could place an unfair burden on some taxpayers and emphasised the importance of clear and accessible mechanisms for challenging presumed delivery.
Another professional body considered that greater clarity is required regarding what would constitute "evidence to the contrary" where a taxpayer disputes receipt of an electronic communication. For example, they highlighted circumstances where communications may be sent to email accounts that are no longer active or where delivery failure notifications are generated. They questioned how taxpayers would demonstrate non-receipt in such circumstances and suggested that clearer guidance is needed on the treatment of bounced or undelivered emails.
"We consider what is classed as evidence to the contrary is the key aspect of this proposal." – Law Society of Scotland.
While recognising the administrative benefits of treating a copy of an electronic communication as evidence that it had been issued, one professional body considered that taxpayers should retain the ability to challenge this presumption where there is evidence that the communication was not received or was inaccessible. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that any such process is fair, accessible, and proportionate.
“Delivered” does not always mean 'read'." - Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG).
Taxpayer safeguards
Several respondents, including professional bodies, noted that safeguards would be particularly important where communications relate to statutory obligations, deadlines, or potential penalties.
One professional body also emphasised that confidence in any presumption of delivery would depend on the integrity and security of the underlying system. Suggested features included multi-factor authentication (MFA), secure portal messaging, and clear information about when communications are issued and delivered. They highlighted the importance of clear timestamps, notifications, and the identification of formal notices, considering that these measures could reduce confusion for taxpayers and minimise the need for manual intervention by Revenue Scotland.
More broadly, respondents highlighted the need for Revenue Scotland to maintain clear and accessible communication channels and to ensure that any approach adopted takes account of the practical limitations of electronic communications. For example, one professional body suggested that taxpayers who do not open digital messages should receive follow-up communications by post, while another professional body emphasised the need for additional care where communications involve formal legal notices or sanctions.
Another professional body suggested that supplementary notifications, such as SMS or app alerts, could help make taxpayers aware that a communication has been issued and reduce the risk of important messages being overlooked.
"Consideration should be given to supplementary alert mechanisms (for example SMS or app notifications) to notify taxpayers that a communication is available, reducing the risk of missed messages." - Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT).
Overall, respondents, including tax and professional bodies, recognised the administrative benefits that may arise from electronic communications, but emphasised that any presumption of delivery should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and a clear, proportionate process for taxpayers wishing to demonstrate that a communication was not received.
9. Do you agree with the proposal that a notice transmitted by electronic communications is received on the day of transmission, unless there is evidence to the contrary? Please provide an explanation for your answer.
Of those who answered this question quantitatively, the breakdown of views was as follows:
| Response | Total | Respondent breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 3 |
|
| No | 6 |
|
Distinction between transmission and receipt
Views on this proposal were generally negative, with respondents expressing a range of concerns about the assumption that an electronic communication should be regarded as received on the day it is sent.
A common theme in responses from professional bodies and several individual respondents was the distinction between a communication being transmitted and it being received, accessed, or read by the intended recipient. These respondents noted that electronic communications may not come to a taxpayer's attention immediately, particularly where emails are filtered into spam folders, overlooked, accidentally deleted, or sent to an email address that is no longer in use.
One professional body highlighted the need for a clear distinction between "delivery" and "access", particularly where communications are made available through an online portal rather than directly transmitted to a taxpayer.
"Clear distinction should be made between 'delivery' and 'access', particularly where communications are made available via a portal rather than directly transmitted." - Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT).
The same professional body also considered that clarity around the point at which receipt is deemed to occur is important for maintaining legal certainty, especially where statutory deadlines or compliance obligations may arise from the date of receipt.
Technical and practical barriers
Respondents, including both professional bodies and individuals, also highlighted a number of practical barriers that could affect a taxpayer's ability to access electronic communications on the day of transmission. These included internet connectivity issues, technical failures, limited access to digital devices, and periods where taxpayers may be unable to regularly check electronic communications.
Some respondents, including professional bodies and several individual respondents noted that wider system disruptions, including broadband outages, power failures or significant technology service outages, could prevent taxpayers from accessing communications despite them having been transmitted. Respondents therefore questioned whether receipt on the day of transmission could always be presumed in practice.
Impact on digitally excluded taxpayers
Some respondents considered that the proposal could disproportionately affect taxpayers who are digitally excluded or who have limited digital capability. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on individuals living in rural and island communities, where access to reliable digital infrastructure may be more limited.
These respondents emphasised that electronic communications may not always be accessible or available to all taxpayers on the day they are transmitted and questioned whether a same-day presumption of receipt would be fair in all circumstances.
Fairness and taxpayer safeguards
Several respondents, including professional bodies, argued that an automatic presumption of receipt on the day of transmission could create unfair outcomes where a taxpayer was unaware of a communication despite it having been sent.
One professional body emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear and proportionate process through which taxpayers can demonstrate that a communication was not received. They also highlighted the need for safeguards to ensure that taxpayers are not adversely affected by circumstances beyond their control.
Respondents, including professional bodies, further suggested that clear guidance would be required to help taxpayers understand how deemed receipt rules operate and what evidence may be needed where a taxpayer wishes to challenge a presumption of receipt.
One professional body also proposed that digital communication systems should provide a clear audit trail, including records of when communications are issued, accessed and, where appropriate, acknowledged, to support transparency and provide evidence in cases of dispute.
Overall, while some respondents recognised the administrative benefits of a clear presumption of receipt, many, including professional bodies and several individual respondents, emphasised the need for an approach that reflects the practical realities of electronic communications and provides appropriate protections for taxpayers where communications do not come to their attention on the day they are transmitted.
10. If in agreement with the proposal, do you agree that it would be appropriate to align with the presumptions already in operation for HMRC?
Of those who answered this question quantitatively, the breakdown of views was as follows:
| Response | Total | Respondent breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 6 |
|
| No | 4 |
|
Consistency and alignment
A number of respondents, including professional bodies and several individual respondents, supported alignment with HMRC's approach. These respondents considered that consistency across tax administrations could provide greater clarity for taxpayers and agents, particularly those who interact with both HMRC and Revenue Scotland. Some also suggested that adopting a similar framework could draw on established practice and reduce the risk of differing rules applying across the tax system.
"Alignment with HMRC's approach would offer consistency and reduce complexity for taxpayers operating across jurisdictions." - Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT).
Safeguards and fairness
Support for alignment was often qualified. One professional body indicated that alignment should be maintained where practicable, while other tax and professional bodies emphasised that any alignment should continue to reflect the specific circumstances of Revenue Scotland's devolved taxes.
One professional body noted that, while alignment could provide simplicity and consistency, further consideration should be given to whether frameworks developed for UK income and corporation taxes are fully appropriate for a transactional tax such as Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT). Another professional body made a similar observation, highlighting that the existing framework was designed for individual taxes rather than transactional taxes. One professional body also suggested that any alignment should be adapted to ensure it operates effectively within Revenue Scotland's own operational environment and the taxes it administers.
It was further noted by this professional body that Revenue Scotland may benefit from establishing a stakeholder forum similar to HMRC's Digitising Post Programme Forum, bringing together professional bodies, software providers, tax agents and organisations supporting digitally excluded taxpayers to help inform implementation and identify potential issues.
Concerns regarding presumptions of receipt
Some respondents remained concerned about the principle of presumptions of receipt more generally. These respondents questioned whether electronic communications can always be relied upon to reach taxpayers and highlighted the risks of emails being overlooked, filtered, or sent to incorrect addresses. As a result, they did not consider alignment with HMRC to address their wider concerns regarding the proposals.
Continued role of postal communications
Some respondents also emphasised the continuing importance of postal communications, particularly for taxpayers who have not actively chosen to engage digitally or who may face barriers to digital communication. One professional body considered that accessible alternatives should remain available regardless of whether Revenue Scotland's approach is aligned with HMRC.
Overall, respondents who supported alignment generally did so on the basis of consistency and administrative simplicity. However, many respondents emphasised that any alignment should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and should not override the need to ensure that communication arrangements remain accessible, reliable, and fair for all taxpayers.
11. What action could Revenue Scotland take to address the risks of error and uncertainty highlighted above
The consultation document identified a range of risks associated with a digital by default approach. These included communications being sent to an incorrect or outdated email address, not being opened by the taxpayer, service interruptions, or circumstances such as difficult life events preventing timely engagement. Other risks included uncertainty where a taxpayer has appointed a representative, confusion between formal notices and subsequent correspondence re-attaching those notices, and concerns that a taxpayer may not treat communications from Revenue Scotland as genuine.
Monitoring and follow-up processes
The most commonly proposed mitigation was the introduction of monitoring and follow-up arrangements to identify when electronic communications may not have reached their intended recipient. Professional bodies and several individual respondents suggested that Revenue Scotland should be able to identify failed deliveries, communications that have not been accessed, or other indicators that correspondence may not have come to a taxpayer's attention, enabling follow-up action where appropriate.
Several respondents considered that, where communications appear not to have been received or engaged with, Revenue Scotland should take further action using alternative communication methods. Suggestions included follow-up contact by post or telephone and processes to ensure that important communications are not missed before penalties arise.
One professional body specifically emphasised the importance of an internal monitoring system to identify and manage issues associated with digital communications. Examples cited included email bounce-back notifications and other indicators that communications may not have reached the intended recipient. The organisation considered that actively monitoring such issues would be essential in reducing error and uncertainty and in enabling timely intervention where communications have failed.
Respondents, including professional bodies and individuals, also highlighted the importance of effective processes for managing communications which may not have been received. Suggestions included reminder systems, follow-up communications through alternative channels, and mechanisms for taxpayers to report issues where communications have not come to their attention.
Maintaining accurate contact information
Several respondents highlighted the importance of maintaining accurate taxpayer contact details as a means of reducing communication failures. Respondents noted that electronic communications may be less reliable where email addresses are outdated or infrequently used and suggested that Revenue Scotland should consider measures to encourage taxpayers to keep their contact information up to date.
One professional body noted that this may be particularly relevant for transactional taxes such as LBTT, where taxpayers may have limited ongoing interaction with Revenue Scotland following completion of a transaction.
Security, authentication and taxpayer confidence
Several professional bodies stressed the importance of maintaining a balanced assessment of the risks associated with both digital and postal communications. While acknowledging that postal communications can be subject to delays, these respondents argued that digital communications also present risks, including non-receipt, privacy concerns, security risks, and digital exclusion.
One professional body highlighted the importance of addressing cybersecurity risks as part of any expansion of electronic communications. Suggested measures included the use of secure online portals, robust authentication controls, and safeguards to protect taxpayers against phishing attacks, fraud, and unauthorised access to taxpayer information. The organisation considered that these measures would be important in maintaining taxpayer confidence and trust in electronic communications. It was also suggested that clear communication and public education may help taxpayers distinguish genuine Revenue Scotland communications from fraudulent messages.
One professional body further emphasised the importance of multi-factor authentication, identity verification processes, secure portals, and effective agent authorisation arrangements in mitigating evolving security threats. The organisation considered that these controls would help ensure that communications are accessed only by authorised individuals and support the secure operation of any digital communications system.
Alternative communication channels and taxpayer safeguards
Many respondents, including professional bodies and several individual respondents, emphasised the need to retain postal communications as either a default or fallback option, particularly for taxpayers who are unable to engage digitally or where there is uncertainty regarding whether an electronic communication has been successfully received.
These respondents viewed the continued availability of non-digital communication channels as an important safeguard against missed communications and unintended non-compliance.
Respondents generally favoured a combination of technological safeguards, monitoring processes and alternative communication channels to reduce the risk of communications being missed. There was also a strong emphasis on ensuring that any new arrangements remain proportionate, secure, and accessible, with appropriate safeguards in place where electronic communications fail or do not come to a taxpayer's attention.
12. Do you consider that the audit process and support that Revenue Scotland has in place are effective in supporting taxpayers in their interactions with Revenue Scotland? Please provide an explanation for your answer.
Of those who answered this question quantitatively, the breakdown of views was as follows:
| Response | Total | Respondent breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 5 |
|
| No | 4 |
|
Effectiveness of existing support arrangements
Several respondents were generally positive about Revenue Scotland's current approach to supporting taxpayers. These respondents considered that existing support mechanisms work reasonably well and help taxpayers engage with Revenue Scotland effectively.
A small number of respondents specifically welcomed the support currently available to taxpayers, including access to helpdesk services and other sources of assistance.
One professional body also considered that existing audit processes provide a useful foundation for supporting taxpayer interactions. However, they suggested that these processes may need to evolve alongside increased use of digital communications.
Another professional body acknowledged the effectiveness of Revenue Scotland's current support arrangements but noted that demand for support services could increase significantly during any transition to greater use of electronic communications. The respondent emphasised the importance of ensuring that support arrangements are sufficiently resourced to meet changing user needs.
Clarity and accessibility of support
One professional body highlighted the importance of understanding the needs and experiences of different stakeholder groups as part of designing future support arrangements. The organisation suggested that Revenue Scotland should develop a detailed understanding of what users value, the challenges they encounter and the support they require, supported by ongoing engagement and feedback.
Some individual respondents also suggested there is scope for greater clarity regarding existing processes. For example, one respondent welcomed Revenue Scotland's audit and sampling approach but suggested that more information should be provided on how such processes operate in practice.
One professional body further suggested that, as Revenue Scotland makes greater use of digital communications, audit processes should be enhanced to monitor digital delivery and, where possible, access to communications, helping to provide assurance that important information has reached taxpayers.
Access to personalised support
A recurring theme among professional bodies was the importance of maintaining accessible support channels. One professional body emphasised that ongoing access to support services would remain essential to enable taxpayers to seek clarification, resolve issues and obtain assistance when required.
Other professional bodies also stressed the importance of keeping the customer perspective at the centre of any future system design and implementation. They considered that taxpayer needs and experiences should continue to inform the development of support arrangements and communication processes as digital services evolve.
"It is important that Revenue Scotland stand in the shoes of the user." – Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT).
Contact
Email: devolvedtaxes@gov.scot