HMRC is holding on to millions of pounds in overpaid tax that it should be repaying to members of Eclipse film partnership schemes according to law firm RPC. In November 2019 the Court of Appeal ordered HMRC to withdraw follower notices and accelerated payment notices requiring participants in a film investment scheme to immediately pay disputed tax plus interest to HMRC on the basis that they were issued unlawfully (Locke v HMRC [2019] STC 2543). For a large number of taxpayers participating in the same or similar schemes HMRC has not yet repaid the overpaid tax.
RPC says that HMRC is being selective in its interpretation of the law by agreeing to withdraw certain follower notices and accelerated payment notices related to the Eclipse film partnerships but not others.
Adam Craggs tax partner at RPC said: ‘HMRC’s refusal to withdraw follower notices and accelerated payment...
HMRC is holding on to millions of pounds in overpaid tax that it should be repaying to members of Eclipse film partnership schemes, according to law firm RPC. In November 2019, the Court of Appeal ordered HMRC to withdraw follower notices and accelerated payment notices requiring participants in a film investment scheme to immediately pay disputed tax plus interest to HMRC, on the basis that they were issued unlawfully (Locke v HMRC [2019] STC 2543). For a large number of taxpayers participating in the same or similar schemes, HMRC has not yet repaid the overpaid tax.
RPC says that HMRC is being selective in its interpretation of the law by agreeing to withdraw certain follower notices and accelerated payment notices related to the Eclipse film partnerships but not others.
Adam Craggs, tax partner at RPC, said: ‘HMRC’s refusal to withdraw follower notices and accelerated payment notices and repay the enormous sums of money it owes to Eclipse partnership members may have to be challenged in the courts. Some members are due very large repayments from HMRC. HMRC’s unwillingness to repay these amounts is likely to lead to further costly and unnecessary litigation.’
HMRC is holding on to millions of pounds in overpaid tax that it should be repaying to members of Eclipse film partnership schemes according to law firm RPC. In November 2019 the Court of Appeal ordered HMRC to withdraw follower notices and accelerated payment notices requiring participants in a film investment scheme to immediately pay disputed tax plus interest to HMRC on the basis that they were issued unlawfully (Locke v HMRC [2019] STC 2543). For a large number of taxpayers participating in the same or similar schemes HMRC has not yet repaid the overpaid tax.
RPC says that HMRC is being selective in its interpretation of the law by agreeing to withdraw certain follower notices and accelerated payment notices related to the Eclipse film partnerships but not others.
Adam Craggs tax partner at RPC said: ‘HMRC’s refusal to withdraw follower notices and accelerated payment...
HMRC is holding on to millions of pounds in overpaid tax that it should be repaying to members of Eclipse film partnership schemes, according to law firm RPC. In November 2019, the Court of Appeal ordered HMRC to withdraw follower notices and accelerated payment notices requiring participants in a film investment scheme to immediately pay disputed tax plus interest to HMRC, on the basis that they were issued unlawfully (Locke v HMRC [2019] STC 2543). For a large number of taxpayers participating in the same or similar schemes, HMRC has not yet repaid the overpaid tax.
RPC says that HMRC is being selective in its interpretation of the law by agreeing to withdraw certain follower notices and accelerated payment notices related to the Eclipse film partnerships but not others.
Adam Craggs, tax partner at RPC, said: ‘HMRC’s refusal to withdraw follower notices and accelerated payment notices and repay the enormous sums of money it owes to Eclipse partnership members may have to be challenged in the courts. Some members are due very large repayments from HMRC. HMRC’s unwillingness to repay these amounts is likely to lead to further costly and unnecessary litigation.’