This month, we comment on a couple of taxpayer victories arising out of the high income child benefit charge: in Kensall and Goodall, ignorance of the law was found to be a reasonable excuse, particularly where the taxpayers were not already within the self-assessment regime. Contrastingly, in Cruise and in Golden Grove Trust, the taxpayers were found not to have a reasonable excuse, where they had overly relied on their professional advisers. A similar theme emerges in MPTL, which also draws attention to the importance of following tribunal procedure and observing deadlines. In HMRC v Taxpayer, HMRC is back on track with a successful Sch 36 information notice request, following a string of losses for HMRC in this area. Finally, Hall v HMRC is an interesting examination of when the nature of an interest in possession under a will can alter due to tax consequences outside a testator’s control.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
This month, we comment on a couple of taxpayer victories arising out of the high income child benefit charge: in Kensall and Goodall, ignorance of the law was found to be a reasonable excuse, particularly where the taxpayers were not already within the self-assessment regime. Contrastingly, in Cruise and in Golden Grove Trust, the taxpayers were found not to have a reasonable excuse, where they had overly relied on their professional advisers. A similar theme emerges in MPTL, which also draws attention to the importance of following tribunal procedure and observing deadlines. In HMRC v Taxpayer, HMRC is back on track with a successful Sch 36 information notice request, following a string of losses for HMRC in this area. Finally, Hall v HMRC is an interesting examination of when the nature of an interest in possession under a will can alter due to tax consequences outside a testator’s control.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
