Who decides what your bank reports to HMRC

The Treasury made SI 2026/1152 on 2 November 2026 and laid it before the House of Commons on 3 November 2026. It means that, from 2028, some organisations will have to send HMRC regular data about interest paid on accounts and card payments settled for retailers.

The useful question is not only what data will be sent. It is who gets to decide the rules. Here the chain matters: Parliament granted the power in Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2026; the Treasury used that power to make the statutory instrument; HMRC then fills in crucial practical detail through published notices, schemas and guidance.

Start with the difference between those things. An Act is primary legislation: a law passed by Parliament. Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2026 says the Treasury may make regulations requiring relevant data-holders to provide HMRC with ongoing data, but only to help HMRC carry out its tax functions. That is Parliament setting the permission slip.

A statutory instrument, often shortened to SI, is secondary legislation. It is law too, but it is made by a minister or department using a power Parliament has already granted. SI 2026/1152 is the Treasury using that permission slip. It names the kinds of organisations covered, the timing of reports, and the broad categories of data.

Guidance is different. Guidance explains how an authority thinks the law should work in practice. Sometimes a notice has legal force because the law says it can. That is important here. Regulation 5 says data must be provided in the form and manner HMRC specifies by published notice. Regulation 6 says the data must be verified in the steps HMRC specifies by published notice. So the practical answer to what must firms actually build? is not all inside the SI.

The first part covers interest. From the 2028-29 tax year, a relevant financial institution must send annual data on certain interest payments within 21 days of the tax year ending. For current and savings accounts, quarterly reporting starts with the period ending 5 July 2028, again with a 21-day deadline after the period ends. The rules establish these reporting obligations but do not, in the supplied text, state how the information will be used to check returns or pre-populate tax records.

The second part covers card payments. From April 2028, a relevant merchant acquirer must send HMRC monthly data within 21 days of the month ending. A merchant acquirer is the business that processes card payments for a retailer and pays the retailer the card proceeds. If you buy a coffee by card, the coffee shop does not usually receive money straight from your bank; a payments chain sits between them. These rules point at the firm in that chain with the settlement record.

That settlement record matters, but it is not the same as taxable profit. A retailer’s card-settlement data can be affected by refunds, chargebacks, fees, VAT, agency arrangements, split payments and timing. A card total can help HMRC ask a question. It should not answer the question by itself.

The supplied instrument does not give an estimate of the Exchequer impact or the cost to HMRC. Nor does it set out the wider policy aims attributed to the change.

Those numbers tell us why government likes the scheme. HMRC gets a more regular matching dataset. The Treasury gets a new enforcement tool without putting every operational detail into the SI. Compliance software and tax-technology firms may also benefit, because banks, lending platforms and payment processors will need systems that can collect, verify and send the data.

Who pays? The reporting organisations pay first, through new systems, staff training, identifier collection and error handling. Smaller suppliers may also be affected, but the supplied instrument does not quantify the organisations covered. Retailers and account holders may also pay in time and stress if data are wrong and HMRC asks them to explain a mismatch.

This is where the word ongoing does some hiding. It sounds tidy and administrative. In practice it means a standing reporting duty, not a one-off request. The supplied instrument creates the standing duties described here; it does not set out the older notice-based system in detail.

There is a scrutiny point too. The supplied text does not state the parliamentary procedure applying to these regulations. This is not the same as a Bill going through line-by-line stages in both Houses.

That does not make the SI unlawful. It does mean the politics is quieter. Parliament decided the power; the Treasury decided this scheme; HMRC is arranging the furniture. The public is then expected to find the answer across an Act, an SI, spreadsheets, XML material, guidance and notices.

There is more now than the SI alone gives you. But the supplied instrument does not itself establish what other materials have been published, or the full account of data retention, matching, sharing, deletion and correction when a record is wrong. So readers still cannot see, in one settled legal place, the full account of those matters from this instrument alone.

The question who decides? gives the answer. Parliament opened the door. The Treasury walked through it. HMRC is arranging the furniture. If you only read the headline, you miss the mechanism by which a major data system can be built in plain sight but still feel hard to inspect.

HMRCtax datastatutory instrumentsbanking