This month, we report two recent cases, Danapal and Awdon, which serve as a reminder of the importance of clear evidence when attempting to discharge a burden of proof. On the same theme, in Patel, the FTT took a more relaxed approach to HMRC’s evidential burden in the context of the postage of assessments to a taxpayer. Sikder provides useful clarification that where a double tax treaty is silent on time limits for making a claim for relief, the UK will apply domestic law deadlines. A recent opinion issued by the GAAR Advisory Panel, alongside the FTT’s decision in Pride, reminds taxpayers and their advisers to pause for thought when they come across any planning opportunities which may have a whiff of artificiality. Finally, we comment on the government’s consultation on HMRC’s information and data-gathering powers.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
This month, we report two recent cases, Danapal and Awdon, which serve as a reminder of the importance of clear evidence when attempting to discharge a burden of proof. On the same theme, in Patel, the FTT took a more relaxed approach to HMRC’s evidential burden in the context of the postage of assessments to a taxpayer. Sikder provides useful clarification that where a double tax treaty is silent on time limits for making a claim for relief, the UK will apply domestic law deadlines. A recent opinion issued by the GAAR Advisory Panel, alongside the FTT’s decision in Pride, reminds taxpayers and their advisers to pause for thought when they come across any planning opportunities which may have a whiff of artificiality. Finally, we comment on the government’s consultation on HMRC’s information and data-gathering powers.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
