FCA investigates Wise co-founder after tax default – The Guardian
‘The UK’s financial regulator is investigating the co-founder of payments company Wise after he failed to pay his taxes.
The Guardian, 27th June 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The UK’s financial regulator is investigating the co-founder of payments company Wise after he failed to pay his taxes.
The Guardian, 27th June 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The UK faces making a potentially hefty payment to the EU after its top court ruled it did too little to prevent fraud on imports of Chinese clothing.’
BBC News, 8th March 2022
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In this post, Andre Anthony, a senior associate in the Tax team at CMS, previews the decision awaited from the UK Supreme Court in Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v NCL Investments Ltd and another EWCA Civ 663. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court on 25 and 26 January 2022. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether accounting debits relating to the grant of share options to employees are a deductible expense for corporation tax purposes.’
UKSC Blog, 21st February 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘England’s courts are so run-down they are losing days of work to collapsing ceilings, broken lift and Arctic conditions, the Lord Chief Justice has said.’
The Independent, 16th November 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The UK’s First-tier tax Tribunal (FTT) has no general jurisdiction to judicially review decisions made by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), but it can consider public law arguments in some VAT appeals within its jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal (UT) has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th October 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Two film partnerships were carrying on a trade with a view to profit, meaning that loss relief was available to individual investors, the Court of Appeal has decided, restoring a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th August 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The tax tribunal has no power to direct that an application by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) for a third party information notice be held “inter partes”, that is with the taxpayer or the third party present, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th August 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has upheld the quashing of a “follower notice” that would have required a taxpayer to settle his tax dispute on the basis of a ruling in a different tax case, or to face a large penalty if his dispute was ultimately unsuccessful.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th August 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In this post, Tim Sales, a partner in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, and Hannah Jones, who works in the Tax team at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of R (on the application of Haworth) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2021] UKSC 25.’
UKSC Blog, 28th July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this appeal concerning the law of limitation.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Widespread changes to the UK’s IR35 off-payroll working rules came into force on 6 April 2021, and despite a 12-month delay to implementation, detailed HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) guidance and subsequent amendments to the legislation, areas of uncertainty remain.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st June 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has decided that disclosing information in the wrong box on a tax return but explaining it in the white space was not an inaccuracy, as the return had to be considered as a whole.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st June 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning issues surrounding the Taxes Management Act 1970.’
UKSC Blog, 14th May 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Confidentiality is a fundamental concept at the heart of the modern taxation system. The need to strike a balance between the taxpayer’s right to privacy and the requirement of HMRC to carry out its functions has been the subject of much legislation and litigation.[1] There has been an explosion in the exchange of information between revenue authorities of different countries and British politicians have for years been under pressure to emulate the tradition of American presidents publishing their tax returns. But there is nothing new under the sun: the introduction of income tax in Britain at the end of the 18th century was dominated by concerns over taxpayer confidentiality, which led to measures being developed which have left their mark on today’s income tax system.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 6th April 2021
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘The sale and leaseback of a newly constructed care home was not a disposal of the entire interest in the care home, so as to trigger a claw-back of the VAT zero-rating which had applied when the property was acquired from the developer, the UK’s Supreme Court has decided.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th April 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered his Budget yesterday afternoon. A number of tax measures were introduced to ease the financial burden on businesses and individuals. Some were simply extensions of short-term tax relief, including a holiday on business rates for 3 months, maintaining the £500,000 SDLT nil-rate band, and a freeze on alcohol and fuel duties. In this update, I focus on some longer-term measures designed to promote a post-Covid rebound.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 4th March 2021
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘R (The Motherhood Plan and Anor) v HM Treasury [2021] EWHC 309 (Admin). In a judgment handed down on 17 February 2021, the High Court has ruled that the Self Employment Income Support Scheme (“the Scheme”) introduced during the coronavirus pandemic does not indirectly discriminate against self-employed women who have taken a period of leave relating to maternity or pregnancy in the last three tax years.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th February 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In this case note, Jack Williams of Monckton Chambers analyses the recent decision of the Upper Tribunal in Colchester Institute Corporation v HMRC [2020] UKUT 0368 (“Colchester”). In summary, in overturning the First Tier Tribunal’s decision, the Upper Tribunal held that state-funding did have a sufficient link to the provision of education and vocational training provided by a college to constitute supply of services for consideration and economic activity. Nevertheless, HMRC was entitled to set-off input tax to reduce the taxpayer’s repayment claim. The implications of the case are likely to be profound: many businesses – educational and otherwise – supplying services that are funded by state agencies are now likely to argue that their provision of services does, in fact, constitute the supply of services for consideration and economic activity. That being so, there would be no need to account for output tax on those services and any accounted for with HMRC may be recoverable.’
Monckton Chambers, January 2021
Source: www.monckton.com
‘HMRC’s registration requirements for trusts may not have been the focus of many practitioners’ attention during 2020, but the 31 January deadline for Trusts Registration Service notifications is likely to focus minds not just on annual compliance requirements, but also on the myriad of changes that have taken place over the past year.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 19th January 2021
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘The case arose from the response of certain taxpayers and their professional advisers to the Treasury’s introduction of the so called ‘loan charge’ under the Finance Act (No 2) 2017, which was intended to enable HM Revenue and Customs to put an end to what had become a widespread practice of avoiding income tax by characterising payments as loans rather than income. HMRC commenced a criminal investigation into the conduct of a number of subscribers to a particular tax avoidance scheme and, in the course of that investigation, they obtained and executed search warrants relating to both residential and business premises. The question arose whether the first set of access conditions in paragraph 2 to Scheduled 1 of PACE, and whether the further condition in paragraph 14(d) of that schedule had been satisfied. It prompted the Divisional Court to issue a stern warning about the need for scrupulous care in presenting such an application and the court also gave guidance on how, in practical terms, the judge to whom the application is made should be assisted in focusing on the key issues which he or she needs to resolve …’
CrimeCast.Law, 30th November 2020
Source: crimecast.law