In R (Locke) v HMRC the Court of Appeal quashed the follower notices and the accelerated payment notices based on those because the Eclipse 35 ruling on which the follower notices were based did not set out principles or reasoning which determined the point of law arising from the taxpayer’s claim to interest relief. The decision casts doubt on the validity of all follower notices issued by HMRC to investors in Eclipse LLPs. For taxpayers generally the decision confirms that for a follower notice to be valid the final judicial ruling relied upon by HMRC must contain principles or reasoning which would actually determine the legal issues that arise from the dispute: it is not open to HMRC to form an opinion that such legal issues will be determined in its favour even in cases where in HMRC’s view the position put forward by...
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
In R (Locke) v HMRC the Court of Appeal quashed the follower notices and the accelerated payment notices based on those because the Eclipse 35 ruling on which the follower notices were based did not set out principles or reasoning which determined the point of law arising from the taxpayer’s claim to interest relief. The decision casts doubt on the validity of all follower notices issued by HMRC to investors in Eclipse LLPs. For taxpayers generally the decision confirms that for a follower notice to be valid the final judicial ruling relied upon by HMRC must contain principles or reasoning which would actually determine the legal issues that arise from the dispute: it is not open to HMRC to form an opinion that such legal issues will be determined in its favour even in cases where in HMRC’s view the position put forward by...
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
