Market leading insight for tax experts
View online issue


The Court of Appeal's recent decision appears to set a high bar for establishing an unlawful breach of a taxpayer’s legitimate expectation, write Robert Waterson and Constantine Christofi (RPC).
The loan charge has driven a coach and horses through the statutory safeguards, writes barrister Keith Gordon (Temple Tax Chambers). 
Emily Szasz and Charlotte Anderson (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) examine the FTT decision on the interaction between domestic appeals and MAPs which are provided for in double tax treaties.
David Pett (Temple Tax Chambers) argues that outstanding loan charges should be pursued both as a matter of law and social policy.
Barrister Michael Thomas (Pump Court Tax Chambers) believes there is a disturbing trend in our tax jurisprudence: an increasing number of important decisions made by HMRC are only capable of being challenged on a judicial review basis.
Hyrax and Curzon Capital Ltd consider for the first time the provisions governing HMRC’s ability to seek an order that a scheme is notifiable under DOTAS. Lee Ellis and Cristiana Bulbuc (Stewarts Law) consider the practical implications.
Barrister Patrick Cannon (15 Old Square) provides first hand insight on when and how to use mediation to resolve tax disputes.

Adam Craggs and Constantine Christofi (RPC) consider the recent spate of IR35 cases that have been considered by the First-tier Tribunal, HMRC's increasing use of 'jeopardy amendments' and the increasing number of judicial review challenges being brought against HMRC.  

The judgment in Tooth increases the weight of authority behind the issue of 'staleness', but that concept is not yet settled.
Although the Court of Appeal decided that HMRC had not made a discovery, the judgment contains unhelpful comments for taxpayers, as Clara Boyd and Ian Robotham (Pinsent Masons) explain.