Consultation outcome

Timely Payments in Income Tax Self Assessment (ITSA) — Summary of responses

Updated 28 October 2026

1. Executive summary

At Budget 2025, the government announced its intention to modernise how Income Tax Self Assessment (ITSA) liabilities are paid. Currently, tax can be paid up to 22 months after the relevant income is earned, contributing to large bills and potentially leading to tax debt. The consultation sought views on bringing payments closer to the point at which income is earned; firstly by mandating ITSA payments through Pay As You Earn (PAYE) for ITSA taxpayers with sufficient PAYE income, and secondly through reforms to Payments on Account for the wider ITSA population.

The consultation ran from 23 June 2026 to 4 August 2026, and received 3,630 responses from a wide range of taxpayers and organisations.

While some respondents supported timely payments in principle, many opposed mandating ITSA payments through PAYE. Concerns focused on the potential impact on cashflow, particularly for those with irregular income, as well as complexity and taxpayer control. Many respondents suggested that taxpayers should have a choice over how they make ITSA payments. Employers and payroll operators also raised concerns about additional administrative burdens.

Payments on Account made directly to HMRC were generally preferred to collection through PAYE, and seen as offering greater transparency, taxpayer control and flexibility. More broadly, there was recognition of the merits of more timely and regular payments, despite many having concerns over implementation.

The government has heard the concerns raised, particularly about mandating ITSA payments through PAYE for those with sufficient PAYE income. The government will therefore make automated in-year payments (such as through Direct Debit) the default, with the option for eligible taxpayers to opt-in to payments through PAYE. This approach will provide flexibility for taxpayers, as well as greater scope to design arrangements that reflect the realities of self-employment, whilst retaining the benefits of smaller, more regular payments closer to the point at which income is earned. Automated in-year payments will also be extended to the wider ITSA population who are liable to make Payments on Account, to create a level playing field. To support taxpayers through the transition, HMRC will introduce new digital tools from 2028 to help taxpayers estimate their liabilities, track progress against forecast tax liabilities and proactively make voluntary pre-payments.

Together, these changes will modernise ITSA payments, helping taxpayers pay their tax bill in the way many people already manage other household bills and bringing the UK self-assessment system more in line with other OECD countries including Canada, the US, France and Australia.

The government will continue to work with stakeholders over the coming months on detailed design, drawing on responses to this consultation, to ensure that the new system works effectively for all taxpayers.

2. Introduction

Background

Around 12 million people file a return through ITSA. Some taxpayers only have ITSA income, but approximately 7 million of this group also have a PAYE source of income. Usually, ITSA payments are made long after the income has been earned, which can cause ‘bill shock’ for individuals. Furthermore, most ITSA taxpayers pay tax in large lump-sum payments, for which many find it hard to budget. More background detail is available in Chapter 2 of the consultation document on GOV.UK.

At Budget 2025, the government announced changes to how ITSA payments will be made. It was announced that from April 2029, ITSA taxpayers with sufficient PAYE income would make in-year payments towards their forecasted ITSA liabilities via PAYE, each pay period, with the intention that ITSA liabilities are paid in smaller, more frequent payments, closer to the point of taxable activity. Approximately 2.1 million people would have sufficient PAYE income to fall within scope of the Budget 2025 announcement. The government also announced it would consult on the implementation of the policy, including the potential for more timely payments for the wider ITSA population. The consultation on Timely Payments in ITSA was subsequently published on 23 June 2026, and closed on 4 August 2026.

Aims of the consultation

The government wants to ensure that the Timely Payments policy changes are designed and implemented in a way that achieves the objective of having tax paid closer to the point of taxable activity (thereby reducing taxpayer debt and closing the tax gap), whilst working effectively for those affected by the changes. It therefore sought input from a wide range of stakeholders including taxpayers, businesses and representative bodies in order to understand views, concerns, practical challenges, and potential policy adjustments.

Who responded

HMRC received a total of 3,630 written responses, primarily from self-employed individuals and small businesses, as well as other ITSA taxpayers, accountants, payroll operators and representative bodies. HMRC also hosted a set of roundtable discussions with stakeholders (a full list of attendees is in the Annex).

How HMRC analysed responses

All responses were reviewed by HMRC officials and categorised against a range of key criteria. This then informed a detailed question-by-question analysis (supported with the use of AI) to summarise respondents’ views across each policy theme. HMRC also considered respondents’ ideas and suggestions for policy refinement; these have directly informed the government’s response and are helping to inform ongoing policy development.

3. ITSA payments through PAYE

The government announced at Budget 2025 that ITSA taxpayers with PAYE income would be required to make in-year payments towards their forecasted ITSA liabilities via PAYE, each pay period. The amount of tax that can be collected through PAYE cannot exceed 50% of relevant PAYE income in any pay period.

Overarching views on PAYE as a collection approach

Overall, the majority of respondents did not support mandatory collection of ITSA payments through PAYE. Many respondents were entirely opposed to the proposals, although others recognised that collection through PAYE would be helpful for certain groups of ITSA taxpayers, for example those who had difficulty budgeting, or who had regular, predictable income. However, most of these respondents emphasised that flexibility and choice would be preferable to mandation (for example, retaining the option to make automated Payments on Account direct to HMRC instead), given the range of different circumstances and income patterns across the ITSA population.

Respondents’ main concerns centred around cashflow issues and financial hardship (especially for those with irregular or volatile income), challenges with forecasting income, additional complexity and administrative burden. Concerns were also raised on taxpayer confidentiality, where employers might infer additional income, and the impact on payroll operators facilitating deductions through PAYE. Discussions in stakeholder roundtables and responses from representative bodies highlighted the potential scale of impact on HMRC systems, processes and resources, with some respondents expressing concerns about practical implementation.

Impact on taxpayers with irregular or fluctuating income

A common concern was the unpredictable nature of ITSA income. Consequently, respondents were concerned about cashflow if more frequent in-year payments were required. Concern was greater for the group making payments through PAYE, as the frequency would be set by pay period frequency, which tends to be weekly or monthly. This lack of flexibility over payment timing was a key reason why respondents suggested that deductions through PAYE ought to be voluntary, with choice over payment method (for example, payments made directly to HMRC via Direct Debit), and flexibility to change payment method. More generally, there were concerns about the impact on take-home pay, potentially leading to financial hardship, for example where expected ITSA income was received late. Some respondents made the comparison that PAYE employees have tax deducted on actual received income, and that it would be fairer to base ITSA payments on actual income rather than forecasts — for example with time for updated forecasts to feed through to adjusted payments.

“The proposed approach may benefit taxpayers with straightforward and predictable sources of income, such as those employed under PAYE, by spreading tax payments more evenly throughout the year and potentially reducing the size of balancing payments due in January.”

The consultation proposed that in-year tax payments be based on the last filed ITSA return, as current Payments on Accounts are. Respondents were sceptical about forecasting income in this way for taxpayers with unpredictable income. There was substantial support for taxpayers having a quick and easy way to update forecasts. Furthermore, many respondents proposed customer-centric and low-friction processes, for example allowing a wide margin for error when updating forecasts (without risk of facing penalties or interest charges), and an instantaneous adjustment to payments, similar to how some utility providers work.

There were mixed views on the use of Making Tax Digital (MTD) for updating forecasts. Many respondents supported the greater integration of MTD, arguing that it made sense to make use of the data, as many would be filing quarterly updates by 2029. Others argued that quarterly updates would still not align well with for the pattern of cashflow for many businesses, which would not take account of significant year-end adjustments, including allowances and reliefs.

Respondents raised concerns about the additional complexity of payments through PAYE for those with fluctuating income, who would face frequent changes of tax code and that it would raise the risk of incorrect payments. It was also suggested that this could increase the need for accountancy services, increasing taxpayer costs.

This was of particular concern for those who, due to the composition of their fluctuating income, may frequently cross over the 50% threshold for having payments deducted through PAYE, bringing additional complexity for taxpayers who may switch between having PAYE deductions and making direct ITSA payments.

Safeguards

The current rules are that tax deducted through PAYE cannot exceed 50% of relevant PAYE income in any pay period, to protect take-home pay.

Some concerns were raised that existing safeguards would not adequately protect certain groups, including taxpayers with particular challenges and needs. For example, respondents believed that even with existing safeguards, taxpayers with low or variable ITSA income could see income drop below an acceptable living standard during quieter trading periods. There was therefore significant support for introducing additional safeguards.

To mitigate the risk of taxpayers facing financial difficulties, commonly proposed additional safeguards included offering a choice of payment method, the ability to opt-out, and assurances that deductions and tax code changes would be transparent and challengeable.

Many respondents raised concerns around taxpayer confidentiality, and the risk that employers might infer other income sources outside of their employment, following a change in tax code. Some respondents suggested that it should be possible to keep ITSA and PAYE tax affairs separate, for example by retaining a voluntary system. Respondents wanted to ensure that there were clear roles and boundaries established with employers, with clear data transparency rules in place to provide taxpayer control when managing tax payments and personal information.

Impacts on employers and other payroll operators

Many respondents, including businesses that process PAYE payments, and accountants, suggested that safeguards would need to be in place to protect employers from additional administrative burdens, costs and operational impacts. Respondents highlighted the cost of payroll software changes, system updates and service adjustments required to support the new process. Small businesses in particular, were concerned about these impacts due to their small payroll functions, compared to larger employers that have dedicated payroll functions.

Payroll operators suggested that, without support structures and clear boundaries, the onus would be on them to address taxpayer queries about ITSA liabilities, forecast changes and tax codes. Respondents set out their view that payroll functions should administer PAYE accurately rather than provide support or advice beyond their normal responsibilities, with safeguards in place to mitigate additional administrative burdens and costs. Some respondents also called for robust controls to ensure deductions are accurate, secure and transferred to HMRC correctly and on time.

Many respondents, especially accountants, said that communications and dedicated support channels would be critical to explain the changes to employers and provide bespoke support. Similarly, some respondents emphasised the importance of HMRC providing proactive and simplified taxpayer communications, for example explaining tax code changes, and that this would help prevent payroll operators facing queries.

“Additional coding issues will result in increased queries to the pay teams at an employer… This increases the administrative burden for employers, where the tax taken has no relation to that employer. This will be a frustration for employers as time is taken with coding that they have no power to change and no data to understand where the code has been derived.”

4. Reform of Payments on Account

At Budget 2025, the government announced that it would explore options to extend timely payments to the wider ITSA population, including those without PAYE income. Currently, ITSA taxpayers with liabilities over £1,000, who have not already had 80% of their liability deducted at source, must make 2 Payments on Account: the first in January of the relevant tax year and the second in July after the relevant tax year, as well as a balancing payment/repayment the following January. The consultation sought views on policy design and potential impacts.

Overarching views on reform of Payments on Account

Most respondents opposed reform of the existing Payments on Account regime, although there was notably greater support for direct timely payments compared to payments through PAYE. Certain groups, such as professional bodies, were supportive of the timely payments policy intention, although this was often conditional on specific policy design and implementation decisions.

Many respondents viewed direct timely payments (whether automated or manual) as more transparent, administratively less burdensome and easier to understand compared to payments through PAYE. Whilst many respondents preferred to retain the existing payment schedule, others were open to more frequent payments, especially where these were more closely linked to income already received during the year, rather than forecast income, or where there were straightforward ways to update estimates. A large number of respondents proposed that more frequent payments should be accompanied by safeguards or flexibilities to reflect the diverse circumstances of the ITSA population. Nonetheless, more respondents were comfortable with mandatory timely payments through Payments on Account, compared to mandatory timely payments through PAYE.

“…we are broadly supportive of the policy’s overall aims, the current approach feels like new processes are being layered on top of existing processes and the PAYE system is being made to support processes for which it was not designed. A more radical streamlining of the current system seems to be what is needed.”

Respondents raised some similar concerns about reforming Payments on Account as they did about collection through PAYE, in particular:

• cashflow and financial impacts: there were concerns predominantly amongst self-employed taxpayers that more frequent and timely payments could require tax to be paid before the relevant income was received, leading to financial difficulties
• forecasting: respondents frequently commented that they believed historical liabilities were not a good indicator of future liabilities, as income patterns amongst the ITSA population can be irregular, varying in-year as well as year-to-year. This concern was particularly strong amongst businesses with seasonal or significant annual changes in income. A large number of respondents said that HMRC could mitigate these concerns with a range of easy, accessible and low-friction options for updating forecasts and managing payments, for example digital tools with essential liability and payment data, forecasting calculators and reminders
• additional complexity and a greater administrative burden: these concerns were often perceived to be more manageable compared to concerns with PAYE deductions, assuming the right implementation and design choices, as well as effective tools, support and guidance being in place

Cashflow, forecasting and changes to income (issues specific to Payments on Account)

Respondents made a range of suggestions to alleviate adverse cashflow impacts for those making direct timely payments to HMRC. Suggestions included timing payments to be a short period after the relevant income is received (for example up to 3 months), which respondents argued would better align with the financial circumstances and income patterns of ITSA taxpayers, and reduce the risk of overpayment or underpayments. Respondents also suggested various flexibilities, for example grace periods to set up payments or pauses in advance without penalisation.

For groups facing substantial year-to-year fluctuations in income, some respondents suggested forecasts be based on average profits over multiple years, to smooth the effects of unusually high or low income years. To help support those with major fluctuations or periods of low to no income, respondents suggested thresholds or exemptions to alleviate the impacts on those most susceptible to in-year variation, who could otherwise suffer from unsustainable overpayments.

Payment timing and frequency

While most respondents preferred to retain the existing payment schedule, those who were open to reform generally favoured a quarterly payment schedule as opposed to monthly, as this would strike a balance between achieving the policy objectives of smaller and more timely payments whilst accounting for variations in ITSA income. While there were mixed views on using MTD to support forecasts (as mentioned in Chapter 3) many believed the quarterly MTD reporting cycle could naturally complement quarterly Payments on Account.

A common theme from respondents was the need for flexibility and choice, to cater to the diverse needs of the ITSA population. Many suggested that more frequent payments should be voluntary altogether, such as having an option to opt-out, or that there be a choice of payment frequencies and the ability to move between options if circumstances change.

“We believe that quarterly Payments on Account would be sufficient and support the policy objective of earlier payment of the income tax due. This is echoed in feedback received from our members who would support a quarterly Payments on Account scheme but view a monthly process as too burdensome.”

It was also suggested that if timely payments were mandatory, that there should be stronger safeguards to protect ITSA taxpayers, such as payment holidays or deferrals without facing penalties.

Some respondents suggested that bringing forward the 31 January filing and balancing payment deadline, would be another way to make ITSA payments timely, potentially in conjunction with smaller and more frequent payments.

Payments

Some respondents, especially professional bodies and accountants, agreed that smaller payments close to the point of taxable activity could help with budgeting and reducing taxpayer debt. Many respondents were supportive of the wider use of Direct Debits to facilitate more frequent and automated in-year payments, though this was often conditional on the basis there should be the ability to make quick, penalty-free adjustments, to respond to changes in circumstances. It was suggested that there be the option to revise a forecast prior to each payment point, if more frequent payments were mandatory. There was also a widespread view amongst respondents that repayments need to be faster, as there may be a greater likelihood of overpayments if relying on forecasts.

Many suggested that voluntary methods, such as the existing Budget Payment Plan (BPP), could be better promoted to encourage good payment habits and alleviate concerns of bill shock from having to make a large tax payment many months after the taxable activity. Other ‘nudge’ methods were proposed by some respondents as a way to help encourage timely payments, whilst stopping short of mandation: these included payment reminders from HMRC, taxpayers being moved to the new arrangements but with an option to opt-out, and integration with banking apps to automatically set aside a set percentage of income, with these potentially linked to BPPs.

5. Issues affecting both taxpayers with and without PAYE income

This part of the consultation addressed issues with the potential to affect ITSA taxpayers with or without a PAYE source, as well as agents who may manage affairs for ITSA taxpayers.

Transition to timely payments

This section sought views on what support may be needed as taxpayers transition to the new arrangements, how long any easements may need to be in place for, and whether voluntary pre-payments ahead of April 2029 would support taxpayers with the transition.

Overall, there was a view amongst respondents that the transition should be carefully managed to avoid putting undue financial stress, and to a lesser extent administrative burden, on taxpayers. The most prominent concern amongst respondents was that liabilities overlapping between the previous and current tax year could create a particular cashflow pressure in the transition period, with some stakeholders suggesting this may create broader economic impacts. Suggestions to mitigate these effects included spreading liabilities across a longer period, with views on the length of transition ranging from 2 years to several years. A smaller number of respondents suggested a short transition period to avoid too much complexity, while others suggested a gradual, phased transition, with voluntary uptake to begin with. The ability to defer payments and penalty waivers was also suggested.

Many respondents were in favour of taxpayers being able to make voluntary pre-payments before or during the transition period, to make the transition to timely payments smoother and ease cashflow impacts. Some suggested that the government could provide incentives, such as applying interest to in-year payments.

A common view was that clear and personalised communications would be essential well in advance of implementation, in order to help ITSA taxpayers understand and prepare for the changes. Respondents called for practical guidance, worked examples, calculators and tools to help taxpayers understand how their liabilities and payments would change during and after the transition.

“The transition period needs to be carefully managed because taxpayers may face overlapping payment arrangements. HMRC must provide clear personalised information well in advance showing how the change will affect each taxpayer.”

Taxpayer choice

This section of the consultation asked about circumstances where it would be beneficial to have a choice between making ITSA payments through PAYE, or directly to HMRC.

Respondents generally believed there should be a choice between the 2 payment mechanisms, allowing taxpayers to decide what works best for their circumstances. Representative bodies also highlighted the need for HMRC to provide clear examples, comparisons and have tools available to support informed taxpayer decision making.

As set out in Chapter 3, there was strong support for ITSA taxpayers to have the option to make timely ITSA payments directly to HMRC, rather than through PAYE, in order to address some of the concerns related to confidentiality, transparency, complexity and administrative burdens. Similarly, some respondents said that someone who might not qualify to have PAYE deductions may appreciate the convenience of having tax paid through PAYE. Many also suggested having the ability to switch easily between the two mechanisms, in response to changes in circumstances.

“Some taxpayers, such as those with stable employment income and who have confidence in their projected Self Assessment liability, may prefer a higher threshold where they consider PAYE to be a more convenient means to dealing with their Self Assessment tax payments.”

A few respondents believed that offering the choice between PAYE and Payments on Account could lead to additional complexity, and therefore suggested not offering collection through PAYE.

New and returning ITSA taxpayers

This section of the consultation sought views on how to support new and returning ITSA taxpayers when they start earning ITSA income, recognising that this group may not have a reliable forecast of their future liabilities or stable income. In addition, it invited suggestions on how new and returning taxpayers could estimate their liability.

Respondents highlighted that new and returning ITSA taxpayers would face difficulty in forecasting their income, particularly in the first year where there may be no historic data available, and income is likely to be irregular. Some respondents believed that an ITSA taxpayer’s own estimate would be the most accurate estimate available; others suggested using quarterly MTD data, for those who are enrolled, as a means for providing a reliable forecast. More generally, respondents used the example of new and returning ITSA taxpayers to underline the importance of having the capability to amend forecasts in real time. Others suggested providing a grace period for this cohort, for example by phasing in the requirements to allow time to develop a reliable forecast, or waiving penalties where estimates proved significantly inaccurate.

In general, respondents emphasised the need for new and returning ITSA taxpayers to have specific guidance and communications early on, with voluntary tools available to encourage budgeting.

“In the first year of new ITSA income: no forecast-based demands, because there is nothing sound to forecast from; a clear, early, plain-language explanation of what will be owed and when, with a simple calculator that shows a running estimate as income is reported…”

Potential changes to Payments on Account criteria

Currently, ITSA taxpayers with liabilities over £1,000 are required to make Payments on Account unless they have already paid 80% of their income tax liability at source. This section of the consultation explored the impact of changing the £1,000 threshold. It also invited views on alternative ways to support taxpayers below the threshold to achieve the timely payments objectives.

Of those who responded to this question, most were supportive of retaining or raising the existing Payments on Account threshold. Respondents raised concerns that reducing this threshold would bring more taxpayers within scope of the changes and have a negative impact on ITSA taxpayers with relatively modest incomes. Respondents suggested that any consequent cashflow pressures may be felt more acutely, while the associated administrative burden could be disproportionate relative to the amount of tax collected. Some believed that the ability to make Payments on Account should be available on a voluntary basis to those below the threshold.

Impacts on agents

Many taxpayers appoint agents to manage their tax affairs. This section of the consultation sought feedback on what they would find most useful to carry out their roles effectively.

Agents, along with some professional bodies, called for joined-up and fully tested digital services to help them carry out their role effectively. Some suggested agents should have full access to their clients’ accounts, including PAYE information and the ability to act on behalf of clients to amend forecasts, PAYE codes and reconcile over- or underpayments. Some also suggested they would need access to forecasting tools, with transparent assumptions, calculations and an audit trail to enable them to explain liabilities and challenge outcomes.

In general, agents called for early, detailed technical guidance well in advance of changes taking effect, to help them advise clients accordingly and to allow time to update their software and internal processes. Some agents also requested a dedicated HMRC helpline to assist them with complex cases and issues.

Support for taxpayers and agents

The next section of the consultation sought suggestions on the support and guidance that HMRC would need to offer taxpayers, including those with particular challenges and needs.

Respondents suggested educating taxpayers early about the new arrangements to ensure a smooth transition, with detailed support, webinars and walkthroughs. It was suggested that support be tailored, for example, to those with different income patterns, or be sector-specific. Suggestions included providing realistic worked examples covering the breadth of taxpayer circumstances. Respondents also identified various groups who would need additional tailored support and guidance, including taxpayers with disabilities, older, non-English speaking, and digitally-excluded taxpayers who may struggle to navigate the new requirements. Some respondents suggested alternative non-digital forms of support should be available, including face-to-face and community-level support. Respondents said that financially vulnerable ITSA taxpayers, including those in receipt of Universal Credit (UC), should either be exempt from the new requirements, or should be provided with additional protections. Representatives for lower income groups highlighted the potential for added manual administrative burdens for UC recipients.

Many said that an easy way to manage ITSA tax affairs would be vital. A common suggestion was for a clear, simple and intuitive online tool showing the estimated liability, payments to-date, future payment dates and remaining balance. Many proposed that an online portal ought to be integrated with MTD. Some respondents proposed that targeted reminders before payments would be useful and effective.

Some respondents proposed free or subsidised software, support with accounting costs and help with transition-related costs. Representative bodies also suggested a range of digital-first tools and guidance, supported by dedicated helplines (particularly during any transition) and non-digital options.

6. Government response and next steps

Government response

The government has carefully considered the views expressed in this consultation. Responses have often recognised that while there are challenges with implementing timely payments, the underlying principle of making smaller tax payments, closer to the point of taxable activity, has merit, helping to reduce bill shock and taxpayer debt, and therefore closing the tax gap.

The government understands the strength of feeling that respondents have, particularly about mandating ITSA payments through PAYE. It also recognises that the arrangements must be fair, flexible and capable of reflecting the different circumstances of ITSA taxpayers, including those with variable or unpredictable income. For this reason, the government has decided to extend timely payments to the wider ITSA population who are liable to make Payments on Account, to create a level playing field. However, the government is making the default approach automated in-year payments, for example through Direct Debit, rather than requiring eligible taxpayers to make payments through PAYE. Those with sufficient PAYE income will have the choice to opt-in to making their ITSA payments through PAYE, where this better suits their circumstances.

In comparison to payments through PAYE, an automated payment approach provides greater scope to design arrangements that reflect the realities of self-employment, responding to the concerns raised through the consultation. This includes considering the appropriate frequency of payments, how taxpayers can update forecasts when their income changes, and what safeguards and flexibilities may be needed for taxpayers experiencing cashflow difficulties.

The government has listened carefully to the views expressed around the transition and has decided that moving to the new arrangements from April 2029 will be the most straightforward approach for taxpayers. However, as announced at Autumn Budget 2024, HMRC is introducing new web and app functionality for ITSA taxpayers to estimate their liability, make voluntary payments towards it and track how their payments are covering their forecasted tax liability. This functionality will become available in 2028, supporting taxpayers to proactively make pre-payments and prepare for the transition to the new arrangements.

The government recognises that taxpayers, agents and payroll operators will need sufficient time to understand and prepare for the changes. The changes will begin from April 2029, and HMRC will provide further information and support in advance of implementation.

Following these changes, taxpayers will make regular, smaller payments throughout the year, rather than large lump-sum payments long after income is earned. This will help taxpayers to budget for and manage their tax bills over the year, including reflecting changes in their income and circumstances. The changes will modernise Self Assessment payments, bringing them closer to the way many people already manage other household bills.

Next steps

The government is grateful to everyone who responded to this consultation. Views and suggestions made will continue to inform ongoing policy design, and HMRC’s approach to implementation.

The government also appreciates the responses that expressed views on other aspects of the changes, including safeguards, payment frequency, as well as the specifics of the transition to the new arrangements. It recognises that taxpayers, agents and payroll operators need time to prepare for the changes. The government will continue to work with stakeholders on the following areas, and it will set out further detail next year:

• the frequency and timing of in-year payments
• the safeguards and flexibilities needed for taxpayers facing financial difficulty
• approach to compliance, including penalties and interest
• communications and support for customers
• detail on how the transition to the new arrangements will work

Annex: List of stakeholders consulted

45 organisations were invited to roundtables to provide verbal feedback alongside their formal written consultation responses. The following 25 organisations attended roundtables:

ACCA Global

Advice Northern Ireland

Association of Independent Festivals

Association of Taxation Technicians

BDO

Bridgepoint

Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union

Chartered Accountants Ireland

Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals

Chartered Institute of Taxation

Cinven

Crowe

Federation of Small Businesses

Grant Thornton

Institute of Chartered Accountants England and Wales

Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland

Kintec

Low Incomes Tax Reform Group

National Farmers Union

Prospect Union

TaxAid

Tax Policy Advice

the fold

The Payroll Practice

UK Private Capital