Depends when, and depends what you refer to as "controlling". For a large time (between the 1600s and the end of the 7 Years/French-Indian War) the colonies functionally operated autonomously, with taxes from goods and generation of trade goods (tobacco, Sugar in the Caribbean American colonies, lumber from New England.) being shipped back to the Isles for manufacturing into goods. While many colonies were founded by public entities/privately, by the end of the 7 Years War, the British came into possession of almost all of them.

The major change of doctrine, right before the 7 Years War, was the passing of the Navigation Acts, which was the first of the Acts the British parliament passed to try to "reign in the colonies". Some acts involved included The Tea Act (Tariff on tea), the Navigation Act (the colonies were only allowed to trade with England), the Stamp Act (functionally, a tax on paper goods) and the Intolerable (American)/Quartering Act (British) which required the private citizenry of the colonists to quarter any British troops. Along with these acts, Parliament also increased taxes.

While the taxes alone weren't a massive issue with the colonists, two major things about the taxes influenced the colonists' way of perceiving the taxes, and the British themselves. The first, and most famous was the fact that the colonies had no actual representation in British parliament, which was a concept foreign to the British, as they didn't necessarily see a delineation (past culturally, and, to an extent class-wise) between themselves and the colonists, the Sugar traders in the Caribbean, the Canadians, nor especially the Indians (after Plassey in 1753, which, would technically be the EIC anyway, but that's beside the point) had independent representatives in Parliament, rather the interests of the British were seen, also as the interests of the colonies.

The second, and less talked about (partly, because it's more confusing) part, is that the taxes were required to be paid in British currency as opposed to the local, colonial currency. The reason for the British doing this is quite simple- they didn't have control of who minted the colonial currency, and couldn't be absolutely sure of its value at any certain time. Acquiring the British currency necessary to pay the taxes legislated by the British proved to be difficult for some colonists, and caused unrest.

So, in conclusion, kind of. It's perfectly reasonable to see why the Americans revolted, they were certainly having their liberties taken away, and I didn't even talk about the enlightenment, or the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, there was tonnes of stuff happening in England in the 17th century that functionally required the colonists to work independently, and as such, they saw themselves as loyal, but independent. It ultimately lies in your matter of perceiving the issue, like does most historical narrative.