‘The £100 immediate fine for filing a late tax return will be replaced by a driving licence-style points system. The change will come as part of a series of Treasury reforms which aim to concentrate on serious tax avoidance and not punish taxpayers who make simple errors.’
The Guardian, 24th November 2017
Source: www.theguardian.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
‘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
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
‘In 2004 two banks entered into arrangements designed to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the lncome Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as substituted, which created a special regime for employment-related securities whereby “restricted securities” (including, by section 423(2), shares which were subject to a condition providing for their forfeiture in certain circumstances so as to render their market value less than it otherwise would be but for that condition) were, by section 425(2) and 429, exempt from income tax. Each bank invoked a scheme whereby (i) it set up a company merely for the purposes of the scheme, which undertook no activities beyond its participation in the scheme, was to be liquidated upon the termination of the scheme, and the memorandum and articles of which contained conditions designed to comply with Chapter 2, and (ii) the shares of the company were to be allocated to specified employees in lieu of a cash bonus. In the first case there was a condition for an immediate and automatic sale of the shares if, on any date during a specified three week period, the closing value of the FTSE 100 Index exceeded a defined “trigger level”, the probability of which was unlikely but in any event was hedged against so that in the event of a forced sale the employees would not be materially worse off. In the second case there was a provision which, in effect, provided that an employee would forfeit his shares if he voluntarily resigned or was dismissed for misconduct during the first eight weeks after the company was set up. In both cases, once the exemptions from income tax conferred by sections 425(2) and 429 had accrued, the shares were redeemable by the employees for cash. The revenue took the view that the banks were to be treated as having paid the relevant employees cash sums equal to their share allocation and issued PAYE determinations and NIC decisions against each bank, as the body liable to deduct such sums. Each bank appealed. The First-tier Tribunal, in separate decisions, held that Parliament could not have intended that the exemption should apply to arrangements contrived purely in order to obtain the exemption but having no other business or commercial purpose. On appeals heard together the Upper Tribunal held that the scheme in the first case met the requirements of the legislation and so allowed that bank’s appeal, but held that the scheme in the second case did not fully comply with the terms of Chapter 2 in that, on the facts, the company had been set up in a way which did not comply with section 429. On appeal by the revenue in the first case and by the bank in the second case, the Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision in the first case on like ground and, having reversed the factual finding in the second case, allowed that bank’s appeal on the ground that its scheme also met the requirements of Chapter 2.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Money advanced in the form of a “loan” to the member of a so-called ‘pension liberation’ scheme was a “payment” for the purposes of the tax rules, and therefore subject to a 40% income tax charge and additional surcharge, a tax tribunal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th January 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
R (Derry) v Revenue and Customs Comrs: [2015] UKUT 0416 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 379
‘Sections 132 and 133 of the Income Tax Act 2007 were consistent with paragraph 2 of Schedule 1B to the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the two sets of provisions could operate in conjunction.’
WLR Daily, 28th July 2015
‘Partner payment notices issued by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners under paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 32 to the Finance Act 2014 were not unlawful.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Richard Holme, Chartered Accountant of Creaseys, a firm which specialises in advising family lawyers on tax related family law issues, explains the Budget changes of most relevance to family lawyers.’
Family Law Week, 8th July 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Registration has opened for the new marriage tax allowance – a Conservative policy which will allow some couples to share part of their annual income tax allowance.’
The Guardian, 20th February 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘On the proper meaning and application of “trade” in sections 5 and 863(1) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 and section 362 (1)(b) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 the taxpayer carried on the business of exploiting films not amounting to a trade. Accordingly, the taxpayer’s members were not entitled to tax relief in respect of interest on their borrowings.’
WLR Daily, 17th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In Philip Shirley v HMRC, [1] the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (FTT) concluded that a provision in a statute rewritten as part of the Tax Law Rewrite Project should be literally interpreted as the wording in question was clear and unambiguous.’
RPC Tax Take, 11th December 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Where the revenue gave notice of its withdrawal of approval of a pension scheme under section 591B(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the date for the purposes of section 591C(1) when the charge to tax arose in respect of that scheme was the date when approval of the scheme was withdrawn and not the date from which approval ceased to continue.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“New rules aimed at ensuring that businesses which employ UK-based workers through offshore structures pay the correct employment taxes have been published for consultation by the Government.”
OUT-LAW.com, 31st May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“A tax loophole which allows firms to dodge around £100 million a year in National Insurance will be closed in the Budget, it was announced.”
The Independent, 16th March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“For the purposes of income tax assessment, a transaction was “artificial” if it had, as compared with normal transactions of an ostensibly similar type, features that were abnormal and appeared to be part of a plan. A transaction was not artificial merely because it was not commercial, but if a transaction effected in a commercial context was attacked as uncommercial that might be a reason for looking at it closely.”
WLR Daily, 13th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v First Nationwide [2012] EWCA Civ 278; [2012] WLR (D) 73
“The tax status of preference dividends from a Cayman Islands company to whose shares the taxpayer had subscribed, was determined by the machinery by which they were distributed. Under Cayman law share premium was distributable as dividend, whereas in English tax law share premium was treated in the same way as paid-up share capital. The transaction was not a sale and repurchase of securities such as to constitute a ‘buying back’ within the meaning of sections 737A and 730B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 13th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Cotter: [2012] EWCA Civ 81; [2012] WLR (D) 25
“Where the revenue decided to challenge matters contained in a self assessment tax return in response to the particulars sought by the return, it should use either the procedure in section 9A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 or seek to make a correction to the return under section 9ZB, if applicable, therefore entitling the taxpayer to a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. The court did not have jurisdiction to determine in collection proceedings whether a taxpayer was entitled to include in his tax return a claim for relief and so rely on it as a defence to the claim for immediate payment.”
WLR Daily, 8th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Shares awarded to employees in ‘cash box’ companies as part of an avoidance scheme are ‘readily convertible assets’ (RCAs) on which an employer must account for income tax under pay as you earn (PAYE), a tribunal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th February 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024