header-logo header-logo

06 January 2011 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7447 / Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

Peter Vaines recounts a tale of appeals out of time

The case of R Legg TC/2010/04462 indicates that it is generally not in your interests to ignore communications from HMRC. No surprise there—but this will make your hair stand on end.

Mr Legg was contacted by HMRC who suggested that he was party to a bank account which had been credited with £3,000 interest. Mr Legg ignored it. How much tax do you think HMRC could possibly charge as a result? How about £275,000. You may laugh—and although Mr Legg thought this was a joke and “was waiting for Jeremy Beadle to appear” he should have done something because the result was a statutory demand to make him bankrupt. He made an application to the Tribunal to appeal out of time but they said: “It is not in the public interest for this matter to proceed; the amount of tax is large and an early resolution of the matter and the payment of the tax is now appropriate”.

How on earth do HMRC get to a figure of tax of £275,000 as a result

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll