In Cliff v HMRC, the tribunal interpreted ‘deliberate’ as ‘a conscious choice to act in a certain way’; there was no requirement to show an intention not to pay tax or to act without good faith. The decision erodes the behavioural distinction between ‘careless’ and ‘deliberate behaviour’, and it would mean that taxpayers taking a bona fide view of the law and acting with care may nerveless be subject to the severe sanctions that attach to the ‘deliberate’ penalty regime. In the authors’ opinion, this reasoning is not justified on policy grounds or as a matter of statutory interpretation.
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Cliff v HMRC, the tribunal interpreted ‘deliberate’ as ‘a conscious choice to act in a certain way’; there was no requirement to show an intention not to pay tax or to act without good faith. The decision erodes the behavioural distinction between ‘careless’ and ‘deliberate behaviour’, and it would mean that taxpayers taking a bona fide view of the law and acting with care may nerveless be subject to the severe sanctions that attach to the ‘deliberate’ penalty regime. In the authors’ opinion, this reasoning is not justified on policy grounds or as a matter of statutory interpretation.
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
90a1d87b-c1b5-43c3-a720-cd324830adee.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=1b2d0a7e_1)
