‘HM Revenue and Customs seized assets from 2,833 businesses last year as the government ramps up pressure on firms not paying tax on time. The number of firms facing asset seizures jumped 45 per cent from 2016/17 and has increased more than fourfold since 2014/15.’
The Independent, 15th October 2018
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in the UK is seeking “unprecedented” powers to obtain information about taxpayers without independent oversight from the tax tribunal, a tax expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th July 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The number of serious tax evasion cases identified by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) increased by over one fifth last year, as HMRC has begun to receive more information about taxpayers with offshore bank accounts.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th May 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In UK tax avoidance disputes there are practical difficulties in asserting legal privilege to prevent legal advice being disclosed to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) where the taxpayer has to explain the motivations behind a transaction, but properly asserting privilege should never be seen as being ‘uncooperative’.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th May 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Steven Sieff, consultant in the tax team at CMS, offers a preview of the decision awaited in Project Blue Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.’
UK Supreme Court Blog , 13th March 2018
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed two challenges to the issue by the UK’s HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) of notices requiring the payment of disputed tax upfront. The Court dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals against two High Court decisions rejecting judicial review challenges to the issue of accelerated payment notices (APNs) and partner payment notices (PPNs).’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th December 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Payments to two footballers for early termination of fixed term contracts were taxable as termination payments and not as general earnings, even though the contracts envisaged early termination by mutual consent, the UK’s Upper Tribunal has decided, upholding an early First-Tier tribunal decision.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th December 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Supreme Court (‘SC’) on 1 November 2017 handed down judgment in Littlewoods Ltd and others v. HMRC [2017] UKSC 70. In a judgment of Lords Reed and Hodge (with whom Lords Neuberger, Clarke and Carnwath) agreed, the SC has unanimously allowed HMRC’s appeal against the decisions below of both Henderson J and the Court of Appeal (Arden, Patten and Floyd LJJ). The headline grabbing outcome is that approximately £17 billion of compound interest does not have to be paid by the Revenue to taxpayers who overpaid VAT and made Fleming claims for recovery. But the SC’s reasoning is of much wider interest.’
Blackstone Chambers, 2nd November 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Negligence claims against tax advisers who had given assurances about the effectiveness of tax schemes failed because the claims were not brought within the limitation period.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Five men have been jailed today (November 10) for their part in a £100m tax fraud.’
Crown Prosecution Service, 10th November 2017
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
‘Oil and gas distributing company Glencore Energy’s application for judicial review of the issue of a diverted profits tax (DPT) charging notice by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been rejected for a second time.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The amount of tax the UK’s HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) thinks is being underpaid due to ‘legal interpretation’ has increased by 9% over the last year to £6bn, up from £5.5bn in 2014/15 according to ‘tax gap’ figures released by the tax authority.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th October 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Draft guidance that explains when accountants, lawyers, financial advisers and auditors, amongst others, might be penalised for helping others to avoid tax has been published by HM Revenue and Customs.’
Out-Law.com, 24th October 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘From 30 September 2017, if someone in your firm facilitates tax evasion and you don’t have reasonable prevention procedures, you could be faced with unlimited fines, not to mention reputational damage.’
The Future of Law, 15th September 2017
Source: blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk
‘A leading north-west law firm has been ordered to pay £68,000 in VAT for electronic local authority property searches it procured from an agency, after a tribunal ruled that they should not have been treated as disbursements.’
Legal Futures, 18th September 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘There is “absolutely no basis” for an HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) policy that the VAT treatment of supplies made in relation to a building by a sub-contractor depends upon the treatment adopted by the main contractor, the UK’s First-tier Tribunal has decided in a case concerning student accommodation.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd August 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) could withdraw previous guidance in relation to losses arising from the exercise of share options, even though other taxpayers whose affairs could not be reopened had benefited from the treatment, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘HMRC has stepped up its criminal investigations into corporates, without waiting for the new corporate offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion to become effective Large companies should refresh their raids and critical incident procedures in case HMRC officers appear without warning.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘HM Revenue & Customs has stepped up its investigation into the delivery company Hermes classifiying its couriers as self-employed, while the business has also been hit with an employment rights lawsuit from the GMB trade union.’
The Guardian, 3rd May 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2017] UKSC 29
‘The claimants were “closed-ended” investment funds constituted as limited companies. Between 1992 and 2002 they received supplies of services from investment managers rendered pursuant to agreements which provided for the managers to be remunerated by the payment of fees plus VAT “if applicable”. Under the legislation then in force such services did not qualify for exemption and the managers charged VAT at the standard rate. The managers made periodic VAT returns which accounted for the VAT charged as output tax, reclaimed input tax and paid the revenue the net difference. Following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union it transpired that the supplies of the investment management services should have been exempt from VAT. Accordingly, the managers made claims to the revenue under section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 for repayment of sums accounted for and paid by them in error. The revenue met those claims but, in accordance with the statutory provisions, limited repayments to the net amounts which the managers had paid and did not include any amounts relating to periods which were time-barred. The managers forwarded the reimbursements to the claimants as required under section 80 but since they were insufficient to meet the full amount of VAT which had been mistakenly paid by them the claimants brought proceedings against the revenue on grounds of unjust enrichment and breach of European Union law. The judge found that the revenue had been enriched by the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants to the managers; that the claimants had no cause of action at common law because the statutory scheme protected the revenue from any liability to refund VAT except as provided for under section 80 of the 1994 Act, but that, since, within the limitation period, European Union law required that exclusion to be disapplied, the claimants were entitled to repayment of the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants within that period. The claim in relation to the time-barred periods was therefore dismissed. On appeal by both parties the Court of Appeal concluded that the statutory scheme did not exclude a common law claim but that, since the revenue had only received payment of output tax net of input tax from the managers, it had not been unjustly enriched over the periods in which a refund had been paid to the managers, although a similar repayment was payable to cover the time-barred periods.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024