In a jaw-dropping display of incompetence, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has once again proven itself to be a bureaucratic behemoth that prioritises petty battles over fairness and efficiency. The latest embarrassment comes in the form of billionaire property developer Christian Candy’s £2 million stamp duty refund, awarded after a decade-long tax dispute over his £120 million London mansion. To add insult to injury, the British taxpayer is now on the hook for £270,000 in lost interest, a bitter pill to swallow at a time when public services are stretched thin and households are grappling with rising costs. This case isn’t just a victory for Candy—it’s a scathing indictment of HMRC’s systemic failures, from its aggressive overreach to its inability to get the basics right.
The Case: A Decade of HMRC’s Stubborn Ineptitude
Christian Candy, one half of the billionaire Candy brothers known for developing London’s ultra-luxury One Hyde Park, purchased a £120 million mansion in 2010. At the time, he paid £6.45 million in stamp duty land tax (SDLT), a tax on property purchases that funds public services like the NHS and schools. However, Candy argued that the property qualified for a relief because it was purchased through a corporate entity for development purposes—a legitimate exemption under SDLT rules at the time, often used by property developers to offset the tax burden on high-value transactions.
HMRC disagreed, claiming the relief didn’t apply, and demanded the full stamp duty. What followed was a 10-year legal battle that saw Candy take the case to the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, and finally the Court of Appeal. In 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled in Candy’s favour, ordering HMRC to refund £2 million of the stamp duty he had overpaid. Additionally, HMRC was ordered to pay £270,000 in interest to cover the decade-long delay, a cost that ultimately falls on the taxpayer.
This wasn’t a case of Candy exploiting a loophole—it was HMRC’s refusal to acknowledge a clear-cut application of its own rules. The relief Candy claimed was well-established, and similar cases had been upheld in the past. Yet HMRC dug in its heels, wasting years of court time and public money on a fight it was destined to lose. The result? A billionaire walks away with a £2 million windfall, while the public foots the bill for HMRC’s hubris.
HMRC’s Track Record: A Pattern of Failure
This isn’t an isolated incident—HMRC has a long history of mismanaging taxpayer funds and pursuing ill-advised battles that drain resources. Let’s look at the broader context:
Aggressive Overreach: HMRC has been criticised for years for its heavy-handed tactics, particularly against small businesses and individual taxpayers. The Loan Charge scandal, which saw HMRC retroactively pursue freelancers and contractors for taxes on “disguised employment” schemes from the early 2000s, led to widespread financial ruin, mental health crises, and even suicides. A 2020 parliamentary report slammed HMRC’s approach as “disproportionate,” yet the agency has shown little remorse or reform.
Inefficiency and Waste: HMRC’s operational inefficiencies are staggering. A 2024 National Audit Office (NAO) report revealed that HMRC spent £1.4 billion on legal disputes in the prior five years, with a success rate of less than 50% in high-value cases. The Candy case is just one example of HMRC pursuing a losing battle at immense cost. The £270,000 in interest alone could have funded 10 nurses’ salaries for a year, according to NHS pay scales, at a time when the health service is facing a staffing crisis.
Poor Service Levels: HMRC’s customer service is in tatters. The same NAO report highlighted that in 2024, taxpayers waited an average of 45 minutes to speak to an HMRC representative, with 30% of calls going unanswered. Meanwhile, the agency has been accused of prioritizing high-profile cases like Candy’s over the needs of ordinary citizens struggling with tax queries or incorrect assessments.
Failure to Tackle Tax Avoidance: While HMRC wastes resources on cases like Candy’s, it has consistently failed to crack down on large-scale tax avoidance by multinational corporations. A 2023 Public Accounts Committee report estimated that the UK loses £35 billion annually to tax avoidance and evasion, with tech giants like Amazon and Google paying a fraction of their fair share. HMRC’s obsession with individual cases, rather than systemic reform, allows the biggest culprits to slip through the net.
The Cost to the Taxpayer: A Slap in the Face
The £270,000 interest payment to Candy is a direct result of HMRC’s intransigence. Had the agency conceded the case earlier—or better yet, applied its own rules correctly from the start—this cost would have been avoided. Instead, the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab, a particularly galling outcome given the economic climate in April 2025.
As detailed in my previous article on UK inflation, households are already facing mounting pressures: National Insurance contributions for employers have risen to 15%, council tax bills are up by £106 on average, and water bills are set to increase by 36% over the next five years. Inflation, currently at 2.8%, is projected to hit 3.7% by Q3 2025, driven by these cost increases and global trade tensions, such as the U.S.’s 245% tariffs on Chinese imports. For the average family, this means tighter budgets and less disposable income. Yet HMRC seems content to squander public money on a billionaire’s tax refund, rather than investing in services that benefit the many.
HMRC’s Defense: A Hollow Excuse
HMRC’s response to the Candy ruling has been predictably tone-deaf. A spokesperson claimed that the agency has a “duty to ensure the correct tax is paid” and that it will “continue to challenge incorrect claims.” But this misses the point: the issue isn’t HMRC’s duty to enforce tax law—it’s the agency’s inability to do so competently. Candy’s claim wasn’t “incorrect”; it was upheld by three levels of the judiciary. HMRC’s refusal to back down earlier smacks of arrogance, not diligence.
Moreover, HMRC’s focus on high-profile cases like this one creates a perverse incentive. Billionaires like Candy can afford top-tier legal representation to fight HMRC in court, often emerging victorious. Meanwhile, ordinary taxpayers—lacking the resources for such battles—are left to endure HMRC’s errors, such as incorrect tax codes or delayed refunds, with little recourse. A 2024 survey by the Chartered Institute of Taxation found that 65% of UK taxpayers feel HMRC treats them unfairly compared to wealthy individuals, a sentiment that cases like Candy’s only reinforce.
The Bigger Picture: A System in Need of Reform
The Christian Candy case is a microcosm of everything wrong with HMRC: inefficiency, inequity, and a stubborn refusal to learn from its mistakes. It’s not just about the £2 million refund or the £270,000 in interest—it’s about what this says about an agency that seems more interested in flexing its muscle than serving the public.
What’s needed is a root-and-branch reform of HMRC:
Better Training and Accountability: HMRC staff need better training to interpret tax law correctly, avoiding unnecessary disputes like Candy’s. Senior officials should be held accountable for wasting public money on doomed legal battles.
Prioritise Systemic Issues: Instead of chasing individual cases, HMRC should focus on closing loopholes that allow multinational corporations to avoid billions in taxes. A fairer tax system would generate far more revenue than nitpicking over stamp duty reliefs.
Improve Service for Ordinary Taxpayers: HMRC must redirect resources to improve customer service, ensuring that the average citizen isn’t left waiting on hold for hours while the agency pursues high-profile vendettas.
Learn from Losses: When HMRC loses a case, it should conduct a thorough review to understand why, rather than doubling down with appeals that waste even more time and money.
Conclusion: HMRC’s Failure Is Our Burden
Christian Candy’s £2 million stamp duty refund isn’t a victory for him—it’s a damning failure for HMRC, and by extension, for the British taxpayer. The £270,000 in interest, paid out of the public purse, is a stark reminder of the cost of HMRC’s incompetence at a time when every penny counts. While Candy celebrates his win, ordinary households are left to shoulder the burden of rising taxes, inflation, and a tax authority that seems incapable of getting its house in order.
HMRC needs to stop treating the tax system like a personal fiefdom and start acting like a public servant. Until it does, cases like this will continue to erode trust in the system, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for an agency that’s more hindrance than help. It’s time for HMRC to be held accountable—not just for Christian Candy, but for all of us.
