APN penalties - APN Penalty Appeal Group

[Dilbert]

Is anybody part of the APN Penalty Appeal Group and joining in the appeal to the Upper Tribunal? I was part of the case put before the FTT to oppose penalties on non-payment of APNs (which was lost) and am considering joining the appeal to the UT. The cost is quite a bit higher than I expected though and is just over 10% of what HMRC are claiming I actually owe. It's getting to the level where it may not be worth fighting on.

Deadline is Friday to join the appeal so I was wondering if anyone had any expertise or opinion on this before I jumped one way or the other?

TIA

[DealorNoDeal]

I'm not familiar with the case.

1) On what grounds are the penalties being appealed?
2) What reasons did the FTT give for finding in favour of HMRC?
3) Which tax firm/solicitors are running the appeal?
4) Which barrister are they using?

[Fred Bloggs]

Two hopes here, Bob Hope and No Hope?

[DealorNoDeal]

Two hopes here, Bob Hope and No Hope?

Probably. The APN legislation is clear when penalties arise, which is why I was curious as to what possible grounds of appeal there could be.

[Dilbert]

Two hopes here, Bob Hope and No Hope?

You're probably right. I'm not massively hopeful of overturning the decision I'll be honest.

I can't fully remember the details of the case sorry. I'll try to dig it out. The main argument was that as we had appealed against the APNs in the first place so we shouldn't have had to pay the APNs while that appeal was ongoing - otherwise it would have kind of defeated the purpose of the appeal.

Obviously the court rejected that on a number of points which I'll try to dig out.

The grounds for appeal are based on a legal technicality that I don't fully understand but the counsel is bullish that there are strong grounds.

To be honest my main objective would be to kick the can down the road for a year or two before I have to pay as cash is a bit tight at the moment having had to settle four years worth of EBT loans recently. The original case began in January 2019 and so has bought me an extra three years of not having to deal with it - albeit obviously covid has played a part in that timeline.

I was hoping that any others involved in this would drop me a line as there hasn't been much chatter about this matter on the forums.

Thanks anyway

[DealorNoDeal]

The main argument was that as we had appealed against the APNs in the first place so we shouldn't have had to pay the APNs while that appeal was ongoing - otherwise it would have kind of defeated the purpose of the appeal.

There is no right of appeal against APNs. You can make representations but if HMRC reject these, then it's pay up or incur surcharges/penalties.

The grounds for appeal are based on a legal technicality that I don't fully understand but the counsel is bullish that there are strong grounds.

I've heard that before. I bet they're not willing to stick their neck out and give an actual % chance of success. When a barrister is really confident about a case they'll back it up with a % eg. greater than 75%.

[Dilbert]

There is no right of appeal against APNs. You can make representations but if HMRC reject these, then it's pay up or incur surcharges/penalties.



I've heard that before. I bet they're not willing to stick their neck out and give an actual % chance of success. When a barrister is really confident about a case they'll back it up with a % eg. greater than 75%.

You're correct. Not seen a %. It seems when going up against HMRC the % is always low so I'm not kidding myself that winning the case is actually likely. I guess I need to work out how much it is worth to me to kick the can down the road for a year or two.

Thanks for your thoughts. Appreciate it.

[dammit chloe]

I have heard strong case, bullish etc for all the Loan Charge litigation.

My view is that in days past technicalities would be enough, now they look at the intention/purpose of the law. IMV this is to allow for the fact no-one is able to write good clear legislation anymore. I can't see any case based on a legal technicality getting anywhere.

[Dilbert]

I have heard strong case, bullish etc for all the Loan Charge litigation.

My view is that in days past technicalities would be enough, now they look at the intention/purpose of the law. IMV this is to allow for the fact no-one is able to write good clear legislation anymore. I can't see any case based on a legal technicality getting anywhere.

Thanks for that. The group has extended the deadline for joining so I'm still debating this. However, they're not even sure if this exact technicality even applies to me so it does seem like a long shot.

[eek]

Thanks for that. The group has extended the deadline for joining so I'm still debating this. However, they're not even sure if this exact technicality even applies to me so it does seem like a long shot.

So it's a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very long shot. That should tell you all you need to know.