Talk:HM Revenue and Customs

Latest Scandal

I feel you should include the latest story about this body's failure to secure £25 billion (equivalent to the entire UK annual Housing Benefit bill) from large corporations, whilst hounding small businesses for money they do not owe. The Taxpayers appear to have been duped into believing it is somehow essential for the government to make thousands of them homeless by making savage cuts to benefits, when all that was required to balance the books was for a few of the upper echelons at HMRC to perform the duties they are paid to.79.70.237.168 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)twl79.70.237.168 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Still in progress...

HMRC are disputing the facts about the deals with big business. If a section on this was included, we could only report on the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.152.129 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Address

Address is 1 Parliament Street, rather than 100. The building is double-fronted, with HMRC working mostly from the 1 Parliament Street side and HM Treasury working from the 1 Horse Guards Parade side. Chris talk back 01:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No - the address was 1 Parliament Street from Autumn 2004 to Spring 2005, until the House of Commons pointed out it already had a building the other side of the road with the same address, at which point the address was changed to 100 Parliament Street. --Henrygb 12:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Varney

David Varney is no longer going to be chairman or perm sec - he is going to be advisor to Gordon Brown

Lean

Saying that HMRC has become more efficient under Lean is factually inaccurate. In fact, union bosses have published many internal documents showing how productivity has actually gone down. Maybe not the most reliable source, but in any case i've cleaned up that section to present only the facts. RomBurns 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from a Yank

"HMRC is responsible for ...UK frontier protection..."; so this is the function of HMRC and not the Home Office? What sort of enforcement capabilities do they have, armed border guards, etc.? Thanks. Have Gun, Will Travel 18:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that this question has made me curious, so I have asked it over on the reference desk, where it might attract a good answer. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, HMRC is the primary agency for border protection in the UK. UK law enforcement agencies do not routinely carry firearms so they do not have armed border guards. MLA 10:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the UK is on self-contained islands, so there is not much need for armed border guards. There is a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but that is pretty peaceful.

Most of HMRC's border protection activities are about imports - ensuring that customs duties and VAT are collected, and that prohibited goods (such as drugs) do not enter the UK. Customs officers have very extensive powers to enforce the law - wider, in many cases, than those of the police - although a review is underway to rationalise the different ranges of powers that HMRC has in relation to the matters that used to be under the control of HMCE and those that were under the control of Inland Revenue. As far as I am aware, customs officers can be armed (although - like the police in the UK - they are not usually).

The Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office deals with immigration, but I have not seen an armed immigration officer.

Armed police, and British Armed Forces, are there too, if needed - you often see armed police at airports, for example, and I believe Customs can call on the Royal Navy to intercept suspect vessels. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, HMRC do not provide border controls, they are merely there to check imports/exports etc.. The new Border_and_Immigration_Agency does, and will get more powers soon.

Disgruntled Lemmings

Disgruntled Lemmings is an unofficial staff forum for all HMRC employees so I have added a link to it in order for people to see what is discussed.

Customs ranks

Travelling through ports and airports recently, I see that customs officers are still wearing the same uniforms, with the same rank markings, as were current before the merger. Does anyone know if the rank structure has remained the same? Is any change planned? Is the old rank template at Template:UK Customs rank insignia suitable for inclusion on this page? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

don't know which merger you mean, but to the best of my knowledge HMRC no longer employs uniformed staff at all, as the UK Border Agency took on their port of entry functions. ninety:one 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I came through Heathrow again last month (August 2008) and counted 8 customs officers in old style HMRC uniforms. This was after I had passed through the immigration control with the UK Border Agency officers in their own (totally different) uniform. Same thing at the Spain/Gibraltar border in July. I may be missing something here, but it would be good if someone could clarify. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The UKBA website doesn't clear things up. [1] [2]. As far as I know, before the merger with Inland Revenue, Customs had uniformed investigators with powers of search and arrest, that had jurisdiction throughout the country, not just at ports of entry. So, which agency do uniformed Customs officers work for now, if any, and with what ranks, insignia and uniform? Do uniformed HMRC officers work at ports alongside the UKBA? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This 2008 press release suggests that Customs Cutters are operated by the Home Office. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now read the launch press release that includes (my emphasis):

... 9,000 warranted officers operating in local communities, at the border and across 135 countries worldwide, with wide ranging search, seizure and detention powers. Over the next four months 1,000 frontline staff will be conferred with both immigration and customs powers and staff in England and Wales will be equipped with police-like powers as set out in the UK Borders Act 2007. A full merger will follow new legislation presented to the House in the autumn.

So

1. the 9 to 10 thousand law enforecemnt officers work nationally, not just at borders
2. the merger is incomplete.

What a full merger means, I don't know: will the merged agency collect import duty and VAT, or will it still be HMRC (Treasury not Home Office), or both? Did HMRC ever search or arrest suspected smugglers, do they now, and will they after the full merger? Yes, yes and yes - and they do not need to involve the police to do so (logical since Customs in various names pre-dates the creation of the police)90.218.116.220 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The merger was formally completed on 5 August 2009, and most staff have now transferred to the new agency. HMRC will retain responsibility for Customs policy, VAT collection and "inland detection", for example seizing contraband cigarettes at locations other than ports and airports. All border functions are now UKBA.Thom2002 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

His Majesty?

Government documents normally refer to the agency as HM Revenue and Customs. Shouldn't we do the same? This avoids the need to rapidly move the page, should a male monarch accede to the throne. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even their logo states HM rather than the full title. It makes sense to do this and maybe define HM in the article itself. It would put it in line with Royal Naval vessels, as they are entered in Wikipedia (quite correctly) as HMS only. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. (I moved it from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.) Thanks for pointing out the consensus around the ships. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Infact, all other articles seem to have 'Her Majesty' instead of HM, but I agree this is better. ninety:one 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Better to have just HM as it will future proof any documents from the inevitable change of monarchs--212.69.56.91 (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems a little over-worried, considering that without some extremely unexpected events, there'll only be one such change in the next few decades, as Charles -> William won't need any altering. Sports ground names change much more rapidly, and Wikipedia can cope with that, so I'm sure it could cope with changing one word once in umpteen years! Not that I'm agitating for a change back; it just seems to be a little over-reacting. 81.159.57.7 (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really up to Wikipedia to decide these things. The fact is, HMRC is actually called "Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs." This is provided for in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, c11(4) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050011_en_1. This can only be changed by changing the law, not be changing Wikipedia pages. To change the page as soon as Her Maj passes on would be inaccurate. Thom2002 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I don't think it should be changed back either, but I thought that "His/Her Majesty" was definitely going too far! Thom2002 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good find - nothing is simple! It sounds like Parliament screwed up (but I suspect that detail will be forgotten by the civil service when HM Queen passes on, and HMRC will unceremoniously change its name.) Let's continue to treat the department like ships, and in this case leave the article title as 'HM' with the opening words as "Her Majesty's". Let's try to remember not to change that phrase on the accession of Charles/William! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the correct answer is that it varies to His Majesty's Revenue and Customs or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs depending on the monarch - while Thom2002 is correct to say that it is provided for by the 2005 Act, this has to be read with s 10 of the Interpretation Act 1978 "References to the Sovereign" "In any Act a reference to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of the Act is to be construed, unless the contrary intention appears, as a reference to the Sovereign for the time being." 88.98.11.130 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Departmental responsibilities

HMRC is not required to maintain a register of all taxpayers. The link which supports this does not evidence this either. There is no pro actively maintained register of taxpayers. For example, income tax payers are required to notify their own chargeability. There is work done by the Valuation Office Agency to maintain details of properties for the purpose of council tax, but this is a different matter. Removed the reference to maintaining a list. Big80sFan (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Non-Ministerial Department"?

HMRC is defined in the opening sentence as a "non-ministerial department", yet we are told several paragraphs in that "The Treasury Minister with oversight of HMRC is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury". Isn't it in fact an executive agency of HM Treasury? BTW, the entire category of "non-ministerial department" (for the UK) is highly questionable. The Forestry Commission, for instance, reports to DEFRA, the Government Actuary's Department is controlled by the Treasury, and so on. If anyone is interested, and well-informed, could something be done about reviewing this category and (as I suspect will be necessary) eventually eliminating it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.82.45 (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question! HMRC is a non-ministerial department in the sense that the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs (who are civil servants) are directly accountable for discharging its statutory responsibilities, rather than a government minister. This is to prevent any Government from using tax investigations into individuals or companies as a political tool. However, the Exchequer Secretary is responsible to Parliament for HMRC's overall performance and he sets out its annual remit in a letter to the Chief Executive. This is somewhat contradictory but the article correctly reflects the official position in law. The Financial Secretary is no longer responsible for HMRC and I have updated the article to reflect this. Non-Ministerial Department is an official category of Government bodies and the structure of the Wikipedia articles reflects this. Thom2002 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of employees

The article states that there are around £78K employees. I know that HMRC is massively downsizing through natural wastage and I'm 90% sure this figure is now out dated. Needs someone to look on the HMRC or NAO website to find the proper number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.8.125 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, although the new figure is not comparable with the old one as this is expressed as Full-Time Equivalent rather than total head-count. Thom2002 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

---

HM Revenue and Customs → HM Revenue & Customs – Per the name in the logo. Unreal7 (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - MOS:AMP says "Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations" , however the laws creating the department use "Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs",here as enacted and currently in force.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment this is not a company, it is a government department. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  And? It is an organization, a government organization.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 07:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Did you read the original rationale? give it a read -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment the nominator has changed the rationale. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per legislation creating the department. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The argument about the legislation does not hold water. To quote WP:TITLE, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The ampersand is much more commonly used (2.1 million google hits for "&" versus 1.2 million for "and"). Thom2002 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  Per WP:NC-GAL: "Use official names in article titles (United States Department of the Treasury instead of Treasury Department), unless an agency is almost always known by an acronym or different title (DARPA)." a> 1.2 million vs 2.1 million does not seem to be "almost always". b> Google searches are helpful but not determining factor.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 07:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Touche! Although if we strictly followed that convention (which I would argue should not supercede WP:COMMONNAME which is an over-arching guideline), we would need to move the article to, "Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs", which seems too clunky and officious. So I would still favour the common-name, "HM Revenue & Customs" over the legislative name, "Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs." One could also argue that the name "HM Revenue & Customs" is official (but not legislative) since it is used in all official communications. I would totally reject "HM Revenue and Customs" as this is neither the common name nor the official name, but some synthesis of the two. Thom2002 (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  In the case of "&" vs. "and" we are talking about a symbol that means the word, so I'm not sure Common name applies, it's not like "UK"/"Britain"/"United Kingdom" common names for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". In my opinion, "over-arching" guidelines are general guidelines to follow, but if there are specific conventions for "specific domains" then those are what should be applied. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 16:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I've got some sympathy with that point of view, UnQuébécois. But to follow that convention would mean to use the statutory name, "Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs" (as opposed to "HM Revenue and Customs") Is this what you advocate? Thom2002 (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, I don't know. I've gone back and fourth between "official" and "common name" with this one. It appears that the department refers to it's self as "HM Revenue & Customs", which is pretty straight forward abbreviation of His/Her Majesty's, and & which is an "abbreviation" for "and", it's not like "Border guard" common name for any of the different agencies that guard the border of their country. It's easy enough to create redirects with the two "unofficial" names (or the one "unofficial" name stylized two ways), and to mention it in the lede.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I guess I would support using either the common name or the statutory name for the actual article title, but not the status quo, which is neither. Thom2002 (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Off-the-wall comment: It is a happy accident of the English language that "His" and "Her" both start with the same letter. Otherwise, whenever the UK changed from a queen to a king, or vice versa, British departments like this one, as well as all British Navy ships, would have to change their names. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • reply that happens in Dutch... such as for ships Zr.Ms. & Hr.Ms. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The official website identifies it as HM Revenue & Customs. Unreal7 (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Opppose - the current article title is fine, we may as well stick with the official title rather than using the short version with the &. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The official title IS the one with the "&" sign. Unreal7 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The current title is not the official (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs), nor is it the name "stylized" by the government (HM Revenue & Customs).--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 01:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is the worst of all possible worlds (it is neither the common name nor any sort of official name). There is also a question as to which is the 'official' title - the one in the legislation (which was written well before the organisation came into existence) or the one used in all official communications since the organisation was formed, which is the "&". As a random aside, HM Revenue & Customs does not really 'exist' in any legal sense. The legislation only assigns this as a kind of short hand to refer to the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs plus the staff that they employ. Thom2002 (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ampersands should generally be expanded unless they are invariably used (which this is not). Usage in a logo is not necessarily the usage we should employ. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above, MOS:AMP says "Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations". Also the "&" is in use in all official communications (tax reminders etc), throughout all the text and not just in the logo. Thom2002 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out, ampersands should only be retained if they are the norm. The official name of this agency, as with all official agencies, uses "and". The ampersand is only used as an abbreviation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If we define 'official' as meaning 'statutory' then yes I would agree. This is also a fair assumption. To clarify then, Necrothesp, would you favour moving the article to the statutory name for the organisation, which is "Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs"? Thom2002 (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've noticed that the Scottish Executive's article has moved to Scottish Government. So this is a case where the name of a body as established in legislation has been superseded by the name it has chosen for itself, even before the underlying legislation was changed. Thom2002 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Welsh title

Just because it is legislated for in the act, does not mean that the welsh language title is required in the lead of this article and in the infobox. This is a UK wide department, this is the English language wikipedia. The welsh name is not notable enough for the lead and infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Have to disagree with this one, HMRC is officially bilingual and operates a Welsh-language service, with many HMRC documents in Welsh with the Welsh logo. Many Welsh taxpayers choose only to deal with the agency in Welsh, including over the phone. The Welsh title is every bit as valid as the English one, especially if we follow the convention referred to above, which suggests official titles should be used. Thom2002 (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Many departments or government agencies are able to provide services in welsh too, it does not justify inclusion of welsh on all UK wide government departments and agencies. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If they have an official Welsh-langauge 'personality' on a par with their English-language 'personality', I would argue that it does. Thom2002 (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. the native language of the United Kingdom is English. Just because legislation provides for a welsh spelling does not justify giving it undue weight and giving it equal status with the english language name which is what happens by putting it in both the infobox and first sentence in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the language of this Wikipedia or of the United Kingdom is the big issue here. This is an article about an organisation, and that organisation has promised to treat the Welsh and English languages on a basis of equality in Wales. That is why you see the titles presentated in this way here. Its the same as the article about eg Germany, which gives the title in German, "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" even though the language of this encylopedia is English. The Welsh title Cyllid a Thollau Ei Mawrhydi is every bit as valid as "Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs" (or whatever we end up calling the article!) Thom2002 (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Having alternate names in different languages is not prohibited. As this department has an official name in Welsh, and functions in Welsh, there is nothing wrong with it being mentioned in the lede. No different than articles about Canadian government agencies or Canadian subjects having the french name shown. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada Border Services Agency are two off the top of my head that come to mind.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

French and English is of equal status in Canada, that may be the case of Welsh and English in Wales, but not throughout the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the wider status of Welsh outside of taxation has to do with inclusion of the alternate title in the lead about a tax organisation? Even if it was Magic Pixie Language, we would still include it if the organisation had an official Pixie personality, many pixies chose to deal with it in Magic Pixy Language, all tax forms were available in the Pixie tongue and there was a special Magic Pixie version of the website, despite the fact that the UK Gov as a whole does not recognise Pixie Language. Thom2002 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't see any strong reason to not include it. (Though I noticed that there is -no- Welsh article on HM R&C...) In reality, what harm does it do? But then I am an inclusionist. And what are you talking about Thom2002? Everyone knows Welsh IS a Magic Pixie Language... :P --Τασουλα (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Plenty more recent information available...

Immediate disclosure: I work in HMRC's digital team.

There's plenty of more recent information on HMRC available. The most up-to-date information is on GOV.UK (not the older HMRC website) - see http://gov.uk/hmrc In particular HMRC's annual report and accounts for 2012/13 has information relevant to the Performance section Of course - this is the official information from HMRC. Alternative sources are available! RobinRileyHMRC (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Robin. The trouble is finding the time to wade through that and update these pages. We are all unpaid volunteers. You can't edit the article yourself as you have a conflict of interest but perhaps you could post here any factual points that you think are inaccurate and we could then verify them and change the article? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi RobinRileyHMRC, and welcome to Wikipedia! As Philafrenzy notes, as soon as someone gets around to it, someone'll get around to it. If you fancy helping, editing yourself may not be the best plan, but if you suggest changes here and add {{Request edit}} to your suggestion, someone'll come and have a look and make the changes for you. There're more details on doing this at Template:Request edit/COIinstructions. —me_and 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry it's taken a while but here's my requested edit {{Request edit}} - feel free to edit/alter as required. RobinRileyHMRC (talk)

Suggested new text for Performance section:

HMRC collected £475.6 billion for the Treasury in 2011/12. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-report-and-accounts-2012-13--3

In October 2012 HMRC cleared a backlog of 17.9 million ‘legacy’ PAYE open cases, which had built up during a change of PAYE system in 2008/9. [18] Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-it-easier-for-hmrc-customers-to-deal-with-their-taxes

In recent years HMRC has claimed to be making significant improvements in its performance in responding to phone calls, and in turnaround times for letters. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-it-easier-for-hmrc-customers-to-deal-with-their-taxes

Also, suggest consider moving this from "performance" to "controversies" section: In 2007–08 HMRC overpaid tax credits to the value of £1 billion; at the end of March 2009, HMRC had £4.4 billion of overpayments to be recovered.[19]

Rubbish Telephone System

Supposedly voice recognition, sends you anywhere. And then puts you on hold for ages(now 15 minutes). Hence, NEVER call them (they charge 9p per minute on land line, 40p on mobile.) They don't have a published e-mail address either. Always send a letter. 178.78.75.150 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

So what? kashmiri ^TALK 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary

As of 1 April, Lin Homer is no longer the Chief Executive of HM Revenue and Customs. This role has been taken over by Jon Thompson with Edward Troup taking over as executive chair. Jon Thompson was formerly head of the MoD and Edward Troup was formerly the Director-General of Tax and Welfare. John Thompson is the seniormost Civil Servant in HMRC and Edward Troup is the seniormost tax official within the department

Welsh title?

Anyone know what the title now is in Welsh as it needs changing. Cameron Scott (talk)

His or Her Majesty

There's been quite a bit of editing of the organisation's name. HMRC is unlike other Departments in that it was created by primary legislation, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The name is also created by this legislation, which reads, "The Commissioners and the officers of Revenue and Customs may together be referred to as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs." Presumably, something will be done in due course to change this. Until that is done, the official name remains, "Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs." Other organisations work differently, so this will not apply to all organisations. Thom2002 (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC). PS I should add that the Interpretation Act 1978 may allow this to change, but it will take some sort of official view rather than the judgement of Wikipedia editors. Thom2002 (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - There is no mention of the name changing from Her to His on the gov.uk site or any other reliable source I can find, and as you mention, the name is set by legislation. GrandWeb (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth adding something about the naming and legislation to the article itself so it is explained why the name hasn't been updated? GrandWeb (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@GrandWeb I suspect its unlikely that anyone will confirm the name change until after the funeral (Monday 19th). it would be better to try to at least semi protect the page until then ... Thom2002 (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Issues not raised for 70 years make the transition complicated. Some of the changes took effect immediately: Her Majesty’s Government became His Majesty’s Government in an instant, while the same happened to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That change is smoothed by both the government and taxman typically only using the prefix HM. Cameron Scott (talk)

I think that sourced item from Cameron Scott would do the trick. The Times likely checked it out. Sounds like the Interpretation Act could be used to read 'her' as 'his' in the legislation. Regardless, its a reliable source so I will change it over, thanks for finding it. Thom2002 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If it helps, the new name has started to appear in Court judgments:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1222.html

EuroAgurbash (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if accuracy might be better served by opening the article with HM Revenue and Customs (His or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs or HMRC), or just HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) with a note later explaining the name situation. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

Department name has CHANGED. Now known as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs after the death of Queen Elizabeth. Margeor21 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above, there is no consensus to change the name. Please provide reliable sources. DigitalChutney (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say the semi-protected is still worthwhile as users are editing and reverting without reading the talk page to discuss GrandWeb (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)