Arctic Systems and Langham v Veltema

Arctic Systems and Langham v Veltema

Didn't find your answer?

The Revenue dropped their claims for earlier years tax in the Arctic Systems case on the Friday before the Special Commissioners hearing which started on Monday, 14 June 2005. Langham v Veltema was decided on 21 June 2004.

Would the Revenue still have dropped their claims for earlier years if the hearing had been held a week later?

There is a point to this - the Revenue are using Langham v Veltema agains one of my clients. I need as much ammunition as possible.
Stuart Jones

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
11th May 2005 21:19

No I don't think so. read over SP 8/91
It is debatable whether a discovery can be made in relation to settlements prior to TB 64 published in April 2003. I wager that the Revenue will suggest it is possible, and the likes of us say not in view of the fact that the tax profession at large was not aware of the IR's views on settlements and companies prior to the publication of their article in TB 64.

Langham will always give them an opening, however, it is up to you to prove that your client had self assessed on the basis of prevailing practice, and if the IR chose not to publish it views, how in heaven's name could any mere taxpayer be aware of them?
You may have the makings of a very interesting Commissioners hearing, depending on the other facts. I think this is rather a good one for the General Commissioners, rather than the Special ones.
If you need some help on this, do email me via my website.
Nichola

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JSJ54
05th May 2005 13:39

Sorry, 2004
I have a very similar case but not s660A. The company had a PAYE visit, certain points wre raised but not pursued. The Revenue are now trying to go back on the individual's tax return to those same points quoting Langham v Veltema.

Going back to my original question, would the Revenue have backed down if Langham v Veltema had been decided before the hearing?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
04th May 2005 10:43

You mean 14 June 2004.
In Arctic, the company had already had an investigation into the earlier years. The Revenue tried to re-assess them using s.29 and then backed down.
If the Revenue are citing Langham then they probably feel that they have all the amunition they need, and nothing will save you unless, of course you put a note on the SA return that there was a possibility of an insufficiency in the Self Assessment.
Each case is decided on its facts though. We probably need to hear the full facts here to help.

visit wwww.rossmartin.co.uk

Thanks (0)