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

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