Withdrawal of group relief - time limit

Withdrawal of group relief - time limit

Didn't find your answer?

If losses available for group relief are reduced the surrendering company is required to notify the claimant companies within 30 days. What/where is the sanction for msising this deadline?

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Steve Kesby
27th Sep 2016 12:14

Death by drowning in the River Thames. FA 1998, Sch. 18, para. 75(4). I may have misread it.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Steve Kesby:
By Ruddles
27th Sep 2016 12:43

Thanks, Steve. Yes I was aware of that provision. To put the whole thing in context - and I'm guilty of failing to do what I criticise so many others of - here's a little more info:

The loss of relief is a consequence of a Partner Payment Notice. There are specific tax-geared penalties for failing to make timely payment under a Notice. But where loss of group relief is involved, these would not appear to apply. The claimant companies will ultimately have to stump up the tax, having received the withdrawal of consent notices and amended their tax returns - but I can't find anything that penalises the taxpayer (or indeed the claimant companies) for failing to take the necessary action set out in the PPN by the deadline.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Steve Kesby:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
27th Sep 2016 12:44

I thought HMRC had an aversion to The Thames following their case with Haddock . (The Bottle Case)

Thanks (0)
By Steve Kesby
27th Sep 2016 14:40

I can't see anything either, now that the Sydenham ducking stool has been decommissioned.

@DJKL I haven't read that particular Inland Revenue v Haddock, but I feel sure that there must be a precedent somewhere that allows the Thames to be used for the purpose of penalty, but not of payment.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Steve Kesby:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
27th Sep 2016 15:02

Steve Kesby wrote:

I can't see anything either, now that the Sydenham ducking stool has been decommissioned.

@DJKL I haven't read that particular Inland Revenue v Haddock, but I feel sure that there must be a precedent somewhere that allows the Thames to be used for the purpose of penalty, but not of payment.

Certainly where tidal I expect the use of stakes between the high and low water marks must have featured in the past re penalties.

The Haddock case may of course be somewhat uncommon and very misleading.

Bit of a shame but I believe all the TV broadcasts are now lost though a couple are maybe still available as audio broadcasts . Must dust down the bookcases and locate the books as it is now a good few years since I read them. (they were my father's, a solicitor)

Thanks (0)