A college lecturer at the University of Oxford tutors students in a particular course, helping them on their voyage towards the exam (in addition to helping them pick up additional skills also). However, the college lecturer will generally not set the final exam nor mark the final scripts. Very few students will have been taught in a tutorial capacity by either the setters or markers. It could be said then that one of the roles of the college lecturer is to act as exam advisor. The ultimate responsibility for performing well in the exam lies with the student. The student will have legitimate grounds to complain if the advisor is not very good either because the teaching is not particularly clear or that some items ought to be taught which are not or that the student is taught something that in fact is incorrect. But these complaints will not result in a change to the exam mark that the student will eventually obtain. If these complaints were sufficiently serious, it would seem correct that the student should be put in a position the student would have been in but for the poor teaching (though of course, putting that principle into practice is marred by myriad interesting problems which would be the discussion for another day). Fairness would dictate too that a structure of accountability should be in place which could prevent, track and deal with such problems in the teaching. To this end, there are three broad things the student should expect in terms of the “exam advisor” – that the substance of advice or teaching should be of a sufficient standard (“substance”), that there are means for redress where there are failings (“remedies”) and that a structure of accountability exists (“accountability”).

The role of the college lecturer as exam advisor is similar to the role of HMRC when it performs the task of collecting and managing taxes and credits, or essentially managing compliance with the rules. It has not set the rules and is not the ultimate judge of whether the taxpayer has fully complied with the rules. The ultimate responsibility for complying with the rules rests with the taxpayer. HMRC could refuse to engage with taxpayers and let them navigate their way through the tax code, retrospectively challenging the taxpayer on any failings. But HMRC has long recognised that a better way of carrying out its task of managing compliance with the rules is to proactively engage with taxpayers. Taxpayers may approach HMRC individually to obtain advice on whether proposed transactions are in compliance with the rules (i.e. tax rulings). If enough taxpayers approach HMRC, it might think it wise to publish this advice in a generalised form (i.e. HMRC guidance). It may similarly produce guidance even without being approached if it believes that a sufficient number of taxpayers will likely struggle to properly understand the underlying rules and their application.

Just like the college lecturer then, HMRC acts as an advisor. And just like the college lecturer, the same principal issues in respect of substance, remedies and accountability arise. What if the advice is unclear, incorrect or not published? What remedies are in place where HMRC has been a poor advisor? Who holds HMRC to account when it acts as an advisor?

Some of these issues and their potential solutions I have written about here and elsewhere. The point of this blog is simply to bring these issues together under a single framework and to recognise the important role that HMRC plays as tax advisor.