Market leading insight for tax experts
View online issue

APPEALS


Mike Lane and Zoe Andrews (Slaughter and May) review recent decisions on treaty interpretation, deeming provisions and group litigation orders, alongside HMRC’s latest performance figures.
An obligation to correct tax return inaccuracies is coming. Rob Sharpe and Peter North (Cleary Gottlieb) examine the mechanics and some interpretative uncertainties.
Louis Triggs (Pump Court Tax Chambers) examines the landmark Elborne decision and its wider significance for IHT, trusts and statutory interpretation.
Dr Michael Taylor (PwC) explains how the Court of Appeal’s Bolt Services decision narrows the scope of the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme.
Card image Constantine Christofi Craig Kirkham-Wilson Lauren Trask
Form over influence? Constantine Christofi, Craig Kirkham-Wilson and Lauren Trask (EY) examine the Supreme Court’s decision in BlueCrest and what it means for Conditions A and B of the salaried members rules.
Card image Liesl Fichardt Emily Au Julius Konstantin Berling
Who proves what? Liesl Fichardt, Emily Au and Julius Konstantin Berling (Quinn Emanuel) set out how penalty appeals now divide the burden between HMRC and the taxpayer – and why the line between the two is far from settled.
Card image Alan Rafferty Ollie Winters Jade Du Berry
The High Court has confirmed that HMRC do not have a veto over restructuring plans. Alan Rafferty, Jade Du Berry and Ollie Winters (Milbank) examine the implications of Waldorf, including HMRC’s constitutional arguments, the treatment of tax losses and the evolving approach to cross-class cram downs.
This month’s review by Katie Oliver and Gary Barnett (Simmons & Simmons) covers VAT and transfer pricing after Stellantis Portugal, input tax repayment disputes and a reminder that overcharged VAT cannot normally be reclaimed directly from HMRC by the customer.
Rebecca Seeley Harris (Re Legal Consulting) examines the potential grounds on which HMRC could appeal the judgment.
Paul Farey (AECOM) assesses how the Supreme Court’s stricter approach narrows the scope for capital allowances on preparatory expenditure.
EDITOR'S PICKstar
Top