APPEALS

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.

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.

Katie Oliver

Gary Barnett

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

Rebecca Seeley Harris (Re Legal Consulting) examines the potential grounds on which HMRC could appeal the judgment.

Paul Farey

Paul Farey (AECOM) assesses how the Supreme Court’s stricter approach narrows the scope for capital allowances on preparatory expenditure.

Abigail McGregor

Jake Landman

Jake Landman and Abigail McGregor (Pinsent Masons) revisit the discretionary regime allowing HMRC to suspend penalties for careless inaccuracies, in light of recent Upper Tribunal guidance.

Liam McKay

Adam Craggs

The Court of Appeal restores a strict approach to late appeals, leaving taxpayers facing the familiar Martland hurdle once again, write Adam Craggs and Liam McKay (RPC).

Malcolm Gammie CBE KC

The Supreme Court stands at the head of the UK’s judicial appeals system. Malcolm Gammie CBE KC (One Essex Court) examines when permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is likely to be granted, and considers how taxpayers and HMRC are faring in securing permission.

Thomas Chacko

The First-tier Tribunal’s ruling in Osmond and Allen reveals a mistaken approach to the transactions in securities rules, and to purpose tests in general, writes Thomas Chacko (Pump Court Tax Chambers).