header-logo header-logo

15 September 2011 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

One size does not fit all

Peter Vaines reports on the inevitable failure of HMRC’s revised litigation strategy

In June 2007 HMRC launched their litigation settlement strategy which may be summarised crudely as “no deals”. The idea was that if HMRC felt that they had a good case, they would pursue it to a conclusion through the courts. However, if they did not feel it was sufficiently strong they would back down. I am sure this must have happened in some cases.

Wider purpose

There was a wider purpose which was to prevent any advantage being obtained by those entering into a tax scheme and seeking some undeserved benefit by compromising the matter (ie getting something for their trouble) or at the very least delaying the payment of tax.

The point is entirely understandable—but you do not need a “strategy” for dealing with those cases; you just say no. As far as the delay is concerned, HMRC are always going on about interest being merely commercial restitution for the delay in payment (and they get a surcharge) so it is difficult to see any substance

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