LITIGATION

Robert Waterson and Liam McKay (RPC) suggest that the recent Mitchell case is indicative of a wider sense of apprehension in HMRC.

Is it true that what you don’t know can’t hurt you? Sophie Rhind (Macfarlanes) examines recent cases considering the level of knowledge sufficient for a finding that a taxpayer’s behaviour is ‘deliberate’.

Sophie Rhind and Victoria Braid (Macfarlanes) examine when the tribunal will exercise its power to direct HMRC to issue a closure notice in light of the recent case of Hitchins.

With the litigation on UK exit charges seemingly set to continue, Ben Elliott (Pump Court Tax Chambers) examines the impact of a recent CJEU decision.

The characterisation test for VAT has received important clarification from the Court of Appeal, writes Michael Thomas KC (Pump Court Tax Chambers).

HMRC appears to view many penalty appeals as a ‘second bite of the cherry’, even where the tribunal has not considered the earlier decision, writes Anastasia Nourescu (Stewarts). 

Can it really be right that the taxability (or not) of a receipt can be determined by the partnership, with the recipient partner having no right to object? David Whiscombe (David Whiscombe LLP) discusses a tribunal decision that considered for the first time the scope of TMA 1970 s 12ABZB.

Oliver Marre (5 Stone Buildings) considers two ways in which decisions of the FTT can influence the results of later cases.

Anastasia Nourescu and David Pickstone (Stewarts) consider the pitfalls of HMRC’s newly published ADR guidance and how taxpayers and advisers should approach ADR going forward.

Craig Kirkham-Wilson (Simmons & Simmons) reviews a recent decision of the Upper Tribunal on staleness and Supreme Court precedent.