header-logo header-logo

One size does not fit all

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

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll