http://financeandtax.decisions.tribu...30/TC06568.pdf
My thanks to a contact who pointed this out to me, released today.
It involves a Montpelier DTA scheme user who had FN - APN - surcharge for non payment and whether he had a reasonable excuse.
The legal analysis and logic is convoluted but look at paragraphs 53 and 72.
Para 53 basically says that the taxpayer could have reasonably assumed that following a 7 year silence between the last HMRC letter and the FN, his enquiry was over and HMRC had found nothing wrong and as such could have spent the tax due.
Para 72 says that HMRC's pursuit of Class 4 NIC has placed them in a position where to perfect that charge, they would have to give up income tax.
In short, despite the taxpayer in question attending the hearing by telephone, the Judge needed not much persuading that HMRC had made a complete mess of the process and that their demands for surcharges were little more than a punitive raid on the taxpayer in which HMRC had failed to apply any discretion or indeed understand the law.
This is a FTT decision and may be appealed of course. I'm sure that the HMRC apologists will also say that the agency "had a duty" to defend the appeal. However, when that defence is so comprehensively dismissed by a Judge, how can HMRC justify spending your and my money in such a case?
I suggest that the reason is to keep the pressure on contractors.
However, if they cannot understand the law here, why do we think they do elsewhere?
Answer - we don't.
My thanks to a contact who pointed this out to me, released today.
It involves a Montpelier DTA scheme user who had FN - APN - surcharge for non payment and whether he had a reasonable excuse.
The legal analysis and logic is convoluted but look at paragraphs 53 and 72.
Para 53 basically says that the taxpayer could have reasonably assumed that following a 7 year silence between the last HMRC letter and the FN, his enquiry was over and HMRC had found nothing wrong and as such could have spent the tax due.
Para 72 says that HMRC's pursuit of Class 4 NIC has placed them in a position where to perfect that charge, they would have to give up income tax.
In short, despite the taxpayer in question attending the hearing by telephone, the Judge needed not much persuading that HMRC had made a complete mess of the process and that their demands for surcharges were little more than a punitive raid on the taxpayer in which HMRC had failed to apply any discretion or indeed understand the law.
This is a FTT decision and may be appealed of course. I'm sure that the HMRC apologists will also say that the agency "had a duty" to defend the appeal. However, when that defence is so comprehensively dismissed by a Judge, how can HMRC justify spending your and my money in such a case?
I suggest that the reason is to keep the pressure on contractors.
However, if they cannot understand the law here, why do we think they do elsewhere?
Answer - we don't.
Comment