header-logo header-logo

26 May 2017
Issue: 7747 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Income tax

Jackson v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2017] UKFTT 341 (TC), [2017] All ER (D) 103 (May)

The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to the effect that he had not had a reasonable excuse for submitting a late application for enhanced protection in respect of a lifetime allowance charge pursuant to para 12 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2004. The FTT held that, as required by reg 12 of the Registered Pension Schemes (Enhanced Lifetime Allowance) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/131), the taxpayer had had a reasonable excuse for not giving the required notification on or after the relevant closing date, and had acted without unreasonable delay once he had discovered that no notification had been made on his behalf.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll