‘A group of investment trust companies (ITCs) cannot make out an ‘unjust enrichment’ claim against HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in order to recover VAT paid to their investment managers (managers) due to a mistake of law, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) collected an additional £705 million in tax from investigations into companies’ payroll taxes last year, almost half of which was collected from small or medium-sized businesses (SMEs), according to new figures.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Commercial property landlords could be forced to actively inspect their properties and police tenants suspected of tobacco and other excise duty evasion under plans proposed by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), an expert has warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd February 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A leading tax lawyer is planning to challenge Uber in the courts over what he alleges could be a £20m-a-year black hole in its tax payments in the UK.’
The Guardian, 21st February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Personal data security was breached nearly 9,000 times by the government in a year, the National Audit Office (NAO) has found. The watchdog revealed the 17 largest departments recorded 8,995 data breaches in 2014-15 – but that only 14 were reported to the Information Commissioner (ICO).’
The Guardian, 14th September 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The government has asked tax inspectors to consider investigating allegations of low pay by self-employed couriers working for the doorstep delivery company Hermes.’
The Guardian, 11th September 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘More than half of the challenges brought by taxpayers against HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) decisions last year were successful, according to figures obtained by Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd August 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Government proposals to clamp down on tax avoidance by targeting advisers with sanctions if HMRC successfully challenges a scheme further blur the line between evasion and avoidance, and “threaten the rule of law”, according to a prominent tax lawyer.’
Legal Futures, 18th August 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Harry Potter star Rupert Grint has lost his legal battle for a £1m tax refund. A tax tribunal judge rejected the actor’s appeal against an HM Revenue and Customs block on him using a change in accounting dates to shield his earnings from the higher 50% tax rate.’
The Guardian, 9th August 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Lingerie company bosses have won a Supreme Court fight over tax on special bras worn by women who have had a mastectomy.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A landlord has been sentenced to 17 months in prison suspended for 12 months after she admitted conspiring to defraud a district council.’
Local Government Lawyer, 17th June 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Project Blue Limited (PBL) was not liable for stamp duty land tax (SDLT) in respect of its acquisition of the former Chelsea Barracks by means of a Shari’a finance scheme, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 31st May 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Anti-arms trade campaigners have put pressure on the Government to act after officials’ business-as-usual response to a court ruling warning that illegal arms could be changing hands at at London arms fair.’
The Independent, 16th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A man who admitted selling illegally imported puppies has been given a 200-hour community order.’
BBC News, 15th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘HMRC investigated just 35 wealthy people for tax evasion last year, prompting a committee of MPs to warn the level of action is “woefully inadequate” in the wake of the Panama Papers tax avoidance scandal.’
Daily Telegraph, 15th April 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Hargreaves v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] EWCA Civ 174
‘The taxpayer stated on his self-assessment tax return that he was to be regarded as provisionally non-resident and not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom with effect from a certain date. The revenue issued a discovery assessment against him under section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 on the basis that he was not entitled to be treated as neither resident nor ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes as he had not taken sufficient steps to become non-resident. The taxpayer appealed, first, against the contention that he was not in fact resident or ordinarily resident here, and, second, against the discovery assessment, alleging that it had been made without the revenue having any power to do so and therefore was invalid. He applied for a direction that the second issue be heard as a preliminary issue on the basis that he wanted to be able to elect not to give evidence until the revenue had proved its case on the relevant conditions in section 29(3). The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the application, determining that he had no right to require the revenue to establish at a separate preliminary hearing against the discovery assessment the matters which under section 29 the revenue should establish to show that the discovery assessment was validly made and that while it had a discretion to order a separate preliminary trial, it would not do so. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, concluding that the taxpayer did not have any relevant right to a preliminary hearing and that it was possible to have a single hearing even though there were different burdens of proof on the two issues in the present case and that it would need to hear evidence on the issues together.’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Apollo Fuels Ltd and others; [2016] EWCA Civ 157
‘The employers leased cars to their employees to enable them to carry out their duties. The cars were leased on arm’s length commercial terms, including lease charges at full market value. The revenue concluded that the provision of the cars was a taxable benefit, for the purposes of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, and served notices of assessment for that tax on the employees. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the employees’ appeal, holding that the provision of the cars was a “benefit” which fell within section 114 of the 2003 Act with the result that Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the 2003 Act applied. That decision was affirmed by the Upper Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The London Borough of Redbridge is to share information and intelligence with other councils and HM Revenue and Customs, after three people were found guilty of a £1.4m housing benefit fraud.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In R (on the application of City Shoes Wholesale Ltd) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2016] EWHC 107 (Admin), the High Court rejected an application for judicial review of HMRC’s refusal to grant the nine claimants, all of whom had operated employee benefit trusts (EBTs), the full benefits of the Liechtenstein disclosure facility (LDF). The court dismissed the claimants’ application for judicial review on the basis that their applications were never registered and therefore they had no legitimate expectation to receive full benefit of the LDF, and there had been no abuse of power or error of law by HMRC.’
RPC Tax Take, 18th February 2016
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024