Guidance on Rights and Penalties for Obstructing Inspections Under RSTPA

When refusing or stopping a Revenue Scotland inspection becomes deliberate obstruction

An occupier can refuse entry to Revenue Scotland, ask officers to leave, or refuse to comply with requests during an inspection. However, if that behaviour is a knowing and intentional attempt to block an inspection or certain tribunal-approved powers, it may count as deliberate obstruction and lead to a penalty under the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014.

  • Occupiers keep important rights during inspections, including refusing entry, ending a visit, and not producing documents on request.
  • A penalty can still arise if the conduct deliberately obstructs an inspection under sections 141 or 142, or a section 144 power approved by the tribunal under section 147.
  • Deliberate obstruction means intentional interference, such as denying access, ignoring efforts to arrange a visit, cancelling without good reason, or repeatedly distracting officers.
  • A genuine reason, such as a family emergency, is not normally treated as deliberate obstruction.
  • If a visit is stopped, Revenue Scotland may leave at once, rearrange the inspection, or continue reviewing documents already provided at its own premises.
  • Even where tribunal approval was not in place at the time, alleged obstruction may still lead Revenue Scotland to seek later tribunal approval and explain the earlier conduct.

Scroll down for the full analysis.

Nick Garner

Need an indemnified letter of advice? Email me your situation — my initial assessment is always free. If a formal letter is needed, fixed fee from £350, no VAT.

✉️ [email protected]

Insured by Markel International (up to £250k per claim). Learn more →

Revenue Scotland inspections: when refusing or interrupting an inspection becomes deliberate obstruction

This page explains the difference between an occupier’s right to refuse or stop a Revenue Scotland inspection and the point at which that conduct can lead to a penalty. The source material is about investigatory powers under the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 and, in particular, the consequences of deliberately obstructing an officer during an inspection.

What this rule is about

Revenue Scotland has statutory powers to inspect premises and exercise certain related powers when checking tax matters. But those powers do not remove all rights from the occupier of the premises. The occupier may refuse entry, ask the officer to leave, or decline to comply with a requirement made during the inspection.

The important point is that having those rights does not mean there are never consequences. If the obstruction is deliberate, a penalty may arise in the situations covered by the legislation.

This is therefore a rule about the boundary between lawful non-cooperation and penalised obstruction.

What the official source says

The official guidance says that the occupier of the premises has the right:

  • to refuse Revenue Scotland, or a person authorised by it, entry to the premises to be inspected;
  • to ask them to leave during the inspection; and
  • not to comply with a requirement imposed while a power is being exercised, such as a requirement to produce documents.

The guidance says those rights exist even if the inspection or power has been approved by the tribunal. However, if the occupier deliberately obstructs Revenue Scotland, there can still be a penalty.

According to the source, a penalty may arise where a person deliberately obstructs:

  • an inspection under section 141 or 142 of the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014, including obstruction of the powers linked to those inspections, except powers exercised under section 151; or
  • a power under section 144 that has been approved by the tribunal under section 147.

The source cites section 195 of the 2014 Act for the penalty consequence.

The guidance describes deliberate obstruction as knowingly and intentionally interfering with Revenue Scotland’s right to carry out an inspection or exercise a tribunal-approved power. It gives examples such as:

  • denying access to premises or assets, including non-cooperation when contact is made to arrange the inspection;
  • cancelling visits without reasonable excuse; and
  • continuing to distract officers so that the inspection cannot be completed.

The guidance also gives an example of conduct that would not be deliberate obstruction: asking officers to leave because of an unexpected family emergency, such as a child being injured at school or a relative being taken to hospital.

If an occupier decides not to continue with a visit while the inspection is taking place, the guidance says Revenue Scotland will withdraw immediately. It may then offer another time to complete the inspection or remove documents already presented and continue examining those documents at Revenue Scotland premises.

Where Revenue Scotland says it has been deliberately obstructed in relation to an inspection or power that did not have tribunal approval, the guidance says it may apply to the tribunal for approval for a new inspection or for the exercise of the power. It will tell the tribunal about the earlier obstruction and any reasons given for it.

What this means in practice

The practical message is that an occupier can say no, can bring the visit to an end, and can refuse to comply with a requirement made during the inspection. But if that conduct is intentional interference rather than a genuine inability or reasonable interruption, Revenue Scotland may treat it as deliberate obstruction and seek a penalty where the statutory conditions are met.

This means the legal question is not simply, “Did the occupier refuse?” The more important question is, “Was the refusal or interruption a knowing and intentional attempt to stop Revenue Scotland exercising a qualifying inspection power?”

The guidance also shows that tribunal approval matters. Obstruction of a tribunal-approved power is treated more seriously because the legislation specifically links deliberate obstruction in those cases to a penalty. Even where approval was not in place, obstruction may still matter because it can lead Revenue Scotland to seek tribunal approval for a later inspection and explain the earlier conduct to the tribunal.

For occupiers, advisers and agents, this means that reasons and behaviour matter. A refusal based on a genuine emergency is not treated in the same way as repeated non-cooperation, unexplained cancellations or tactics designed to frustrate the visit.

How to analyse it

A sensible way to analyse the issue is to work through the following questions.

  • What power was Revenue Scotland trying to use? The source distinguishes between inspections under sections 141 and 142, and powers under section 144.
  • Did the legislation require tribunal approval for the relevant consequence? The guidance specifically refers to obstruction of a section 144 power that has been approved by the tribunal under section 147.
  • What exactly did the occupier do? Refusing entry, ending the visit, not producing documents, failing to engage in arranging the inspection, cancelling, or creating distractions may all be relevant.
  • Was the conduct deliberate? The source uses a mental element: knowingly and intentionally interfering.
  • Was there a reasonable explanation? A genuine emergency points away from deliberate obstruction.
  • If the inspection was stopped, what happened next? Revenue Scotland may withdraw, rearrange, or continue reviewing documents elsewhere if they have already been produced.
  • If there was no tribunal approval at the time, could the conduct still affect later steps? Yes. The guidance says Revenue Scotland may apply to the tribunal later and explain the earlier obstruction.

This framework matters because not every interruption is penal behaviour, but repeated or tactical interference may be.

Example

Illustration: Revenue Scotland arranges an inspection of business premises. On the day, the occupier refuses entry and says they do not want the inspection to happen. They then ignore follow-up attempts to rearrange and cancel a later appointment without explanation. On the guidance, that pattern may be treated as deliberate obstruction, especially if it shows knowing and intentional interference with the inspection.

By contrast, if the inspection starts and the occupier receives urgent news that a close family member has been taken to hospital, asking the officers to leave so they can deal with that emergency would not, on the guidance’s example, amount to deliberate obstruction.

Why this can be difficult in practice

The difficulty is that the occupier’s rights and the penalty rule exist side by side. The source makes clear that a person may refuse entry or ask officers to leave, even where tribunal approval exists. But the same conduct can still have consequences if it is deliberate obstruction.

That creates a fact-sensitive question about motive and context. The legislation and guidance are concerned with intentional interference, not every refusal as such. In practice, disputes may arise over:

  • whether a cancellation had a reasonable excuse;
  • whether lack of engagement in arranging the visit was deliberate non-cooperation or simply poor communication;
  • whether conduct during the visit genuinely prevented completion of the inspection; and
  • whether the relevant power was one for which tribunal approval is legally significant.

The source also refers to powers connected with inspections and excludes powers exercised under section 151 from one part of the obstruction rule. That means the exact statutory basis for what Revenue Scotland was doing must be identified carefully before drawing conclusions about penalties.

Key takeaways

  • An occupier can refuse entry, stop an inspection, or decline to comply with a requirement, but that does not prevent a penalty if the conduct amounts to deliberate obstruction under the Act.
  • Deliberate obstruction means knowing and intentional interference, not every refusal or interruption.
  • Genuine reasons, such as an unexpected family emergency, may mean the conduct is not deliberate obstruction, while repeated non-cooperation or unjustified cancellations may point the other way.

This page was last updated on 24 March 2026

Useful article? You may find it helpful to read the original guidance here: Guidance on Rights and Penalties for Obstructing Inspections Under RSTPA

View all LBTT Guidance Pages Here

Search Land Tax Advice with Google



£350
NO VAT
— Indemnified Letter of Advice
Fixed fee £350 for most letters. Complex cases up to £1,250 — always quoted in advance. Insured by Markel International (up to £250,000 per claim).

Nick Garner

Conveyancer holding things up until they have written SDLT advice? I’ll provide a formal, insured opinion so they can proceed.

How it works

1

Email me the details of your situation. I’ll reply in writing — free of charge — with a clear explanation of your legal position.

2

You decide whether that’s enough. Often the free email is all you need — you can forward it to your solicitor for their own assessment.

3

If a formal letter is needed, we go from there. I’ll quote you a fixed fee before any paid work begins.

Start with step 1. No commitment, no cost — just email me your situation and I’ll clarify the legal position.

✉️ Email: [email protected]