HMRC withdraws hundreds of APN's after judicial review

[Darren at Fox-Bartfield]

Bit of a slap on the wrist

[DotasScandal]

Bit of a slap on the wrist

“There were repeated warnings from many in the tax profession when the Accelerated Payment Notices legislation was announced that there were insufficient safeguards for taxpayers and the lack of independent judicial scrutiny was a concern to many.

As this case demonstrates, any taxpayer in receipt of an Accelerated Payment Notice should not assume that HMRC has followed the correct internal processes and exercised its powers lawfully"


Assume everything they say is a lie, and you'll be fine.

[Iliketax]

I couldn't find the Judicial Review that the article mentions so perhaps it never got to caught (or is too hot of the press) but I did see that HMRC won a JR last week on exactly the same point: Graham & Ors, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2016] EWHC 1197 (Admin) (26 May 2016)

[BrilloPad]

And HMRC still want the power to deduct money directly from peoples accounts without a court order?

Nice.....

[cliffordthedog]

I couldn't find the Judicial Review that the article mentions so perhaps it never got to caught (or is too hot of the press) but I did see that HMRC won a JR last week on exactly the same point: Graham & Ors, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2016] EWHC 1197 (Admin) (26 May 2016)

Iliketax
How can it be exactly the same point??
If it was exactly the same point then the result would have been the same wouldn't it?
Which division of HMRC do you work for?

[Iliketax]

Iliketax
How can it be exactly the same point??
If it was exactly the same point then the result would have been the same wouldn't it?
Which division of HMRC do you work for?

1. The same point is that it's about s308(3)FA 2004 and reg 1(2)(b) of the 2006 DOTAS regs.
2. The facts are different.
3. I don't.

[webberg]

From what we know about the decisions, (which I admit is not much), it may be that the cases where the APN has been found to incorrectly issued (not illegal) are where the debate has been over the "notifiable" versus "notified" has been decided.

It seems that a scheme notified but not notifiable under DOTAS cannot have an APN.

(For the moment. HMRC are bad losers and "clarification" may follow which allows an APN).

Challenges which seek to argue on general human rights principles appear to have not won yet and the most advanced of those (the Ingenious film partners group) we understand will not come to Court until late this year.

That is the one we should all hope wins because that will threaten all APNs issued.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

3. I don't.

You come across as on their side though. An HMRC sympathiser/apologist.

[Iliketax]

You come across as on their side though. An HMRC sympathiser/apologist.

Thanks for that. I work with a lot of different people at HMRC and have a very good relationship with them and so I see the people there as individuals rather than as an amorphous blob. But I'm certainly not an apologist or sympathiser. At the same time I don't have any skin in the game. And I'm not trying to sell work to anyone on here. But I do spend a lot of time in the minutia of tax law, much of that on new legislation and getting people out of tax avoidance schemes that have gone very wrong (but I have nothing to do with contractors). If you think that means I come across as being on HMRC's side then that's fine. But it won't be because I think HMRC "should" be right or that tax "should" be paid without a legal basis.

[DotasScandal]

I see the people there as individuals rather than as an amorphous blob

When they don't even have the courtesy to sign their name on APN correspondence, it is difficult not to see them as an amorphous blob.

Contractors would also appreciate being treated as individuals rather than as one giant piggy bank.