HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has published its 2025-26 accounts, comprising the Trust Statement and Resource Accounts, containing the audit opinion of the Comptroller & Auditor General. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) reported £966.4 billion of tax revenues for 2025-26. Under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) must certify whether the Trust Statement is true and fair, and whether HMRC has used the income and expenditure for the purposes Parliament intended. The C&AG has concluded that: • the figures in the Trust Statement are true and fair; and • HMRC has used income and expenditure for the purposes Parliament intended. The 1921 Act also requires the C&AG to consider whether HMRC’s systems to collect tax are adequate. We found that HMRC’s systems to collect taxes are adequate, subject to the observations in this report and other reports to Parliament. The cost of running HMRC in 2025-26 was £ 7.4 billion. HMRC paid out £ 25.9 billion, including £ 13.4 billion of Child Benefit and £ 8.0 billion of Corporation Tax research and development relief. Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, the C&AG must certify whether HMRC’s Resource Accounts are true and fair, and whether HMRC has used the income and expenditure for the purposes Parliament intended. The C&AG has concluded that: • the Resource Accounts are true and fair; but • there remains a material level of error and fraud in Corporation Tax research and development reliefs; and • there remains a material level of error and fraud in Child Benefit expenditure. The C&AG has qualifed his regularity opinion on HMRC’s Resource Accounts for a number of years, due to the material levels of estimated error and fraud with Corporation Tax R&D reliefs (2025-26: 5.3%) and Child Beneft (2025-26: 2.0%).

The United Kingdom’s SAI - the National Audit Office - conducted an audit of the electronic monitoring system for offenders in England and Wales. The audit covered the activities of the Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service and assessed the system’s effectiveness, the quality of supplier management and its readiness to meet rising demand. As of March 2026, 28,700 people were recorded as electronically monitored, while the system’s annual direct cost was estimated at £133 million. The SAI found that the electronic monitoring system was not operating as intended, creating risks to public safety. Around 8,900 active cases, or 24% of the total, were under review to determine how many individuals were not actually being monitored. In 2025, devices were successfully fitted within the standard number of attempts in only 45% of cases. The auditors also identified poor data quality, delays in fitting devices and reporting breaches, shortages of police and probation staff, and fragmented system governance. The SAI recommended developing a system-wide approach to risk management, establishing clear performance indicators and escalation thresholds, improving data-sharing between public authorities, and creating a cross-government body to oversee the system. It also recommended completing the rollout of the new order management system, adopting a risk-based approach to handling breach alerts, and strengthening planning for future procurement of electronic monitoring services.

In February 2026, SAI India published a report on the implementation of road development projects in Madhya Pradesh. SAI audit inspected 25 of the 56 divisions and subordinate organizations of the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department, covering road construction and maintenance activities across the state. The auditors examined 276 road construction projects and ten infrastructure projects financed by the BRICS New Development Bank for the period 2018–2023. An audit of road projects implemented with financial support fr om the BRICS New Development Bank revealed a low level of compliance with deadlines: one project was completed on time. Nine other projects showed significant deviations from planned road lengths, resulting in underutilization of the allocated loan funds. Avoidable penalties were assessed due to delays in funding disbursements. Funding from the BRICS New Development Bank also includes funds for capacity-building in road infrastructure. Of the total 260 million Indian rupees (US$2.7 million) allocated for these initiatives, only 53% has been spent. The audit also identified cases wh ere projects were launched before land rights were registered and the required permits were obtained, leading to delays and inefficient use of resources. SAI also found that the allocation of funds from various sources often deviated from their intended purposes. For example, funds allocated for road network development were used to purchase land plots and relocate utility lines, although these costs should have been covered by the state budget.

SAI Uzbekistan conducted an analysis of the operational efficiency, financial stability, and corporate governance system of the Uzaeronavigation Center providing air navigation services in the civil aviation sector in Uzbekistan. The audit identified certain shortcomings in the Center's operations: the capacity of the country's existing airspace infrastructure is not being fully utilized; despite positive financial performance, the growth of accounts receivable and liabilities negatively impacted financial stability. The SAI recommended that the Center continue to improve its corporate governance, internal audit, and KPI systems, enhance organizational efficiency, and develop a roadmap for assessing corruption and conflict-of-interest risks in procurement processes.

SAI Kyrgyzstan conducted a compliance audit of one of the country's largest strategic enterprises, Kyrgyzneftegaz, for 2025. The audit identified the following systemic violations at Kyrgyzneftegaz: inefficient use of internal resources, lack of timely production measures, deficiencies in payroll management and accounts receivable, excessive and unjustified expenses, and violations in capital construction and public procurement. As a result, the company suffered significant financial losses. Following the audit, Kyrgyzneftegaz was issued orders to rectify the violations, and the audit materials were submitted to law enforcement agencies for legal review.