header-logo header-logo

30 June 2017
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

nlj_7752_vaines

Peter Vaines tackles penalties, prison & other principal residences

  • Failure to submit a zero return.
  • Doing time: an unexpected or unusual event?
  • New twist on principal private residence.

The case of Kaczmarczyk v HMRC TC 5744 has some hair-raising implications. Mr Kaczmarczyk was issued with a tax return but he did not send it back because he had no taxable income or gains for the year. However, HMRC still imposed a penalty of £3,500 for failing to submit a zero return. Their grounds derived from s 8 of TMA 1970, which says that the taxpayer ‘may be required by a notice given to him by an officer of the Board to make and deliver to the officer a return containing such information as may reasonably be required in pursuance of the notice’.

The tribunal held that upon receipt by a person of a notice under s 8, the recipient has an obligation to file a tax return for the year—and failure to do so gives rise to a penalty under Sch 55 of the Finance Act 2009. (I wonder if this extends to failing

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