HMRC enquiries: To pay or not to pay | AccountingWEB

HMRC enquiries: To pay or not to pay

HMRC is adopting an increasingly aggressive approach to taxpayers who choose to dispute a case involving perceived tax avoidance, explain Kate Ison and Aude Delechat of Berwin Leighton Paisner.

It is estimated that there are currently more than 65,000 open cases involving marketed tax avoidance, many of which date back over four years.

In a number of recent consultation papers, HMRC has proposed a range of controversial measures which will give HMRC power to require a taxpayer to pay disputed tax when HMRC has won another case involving similar facts. However, the power goes beyond simply requiring payment pending the outcome of an appeal. Taxpayers will effectively be forced to concede and accept HMRC’s application of the prior case, with very limited possibility to object or they will face heavy tax-geared penalties if they continue to pursue the dispute.

The measures are intended to make it less...


» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.



the_Poacher | | Permalink

Surely anything that reduces use of avoidance schemes is to be applauded.?

Errrr........and what would    5 thanks

Sheepy306 | | Permalink

Errrr........and what would your opinion be if HMRC unilaterally decided that some decent tax planning that you (or your client) did was infact anti-avoidance?

If it wasn't for the above then yes I would largely agree, but you fall into the trap of forgetting about some of the innocent people that get caught up in the sledge hammer used by HMRC.

And also    1 thanks

ThornyIssues | | Permalink

Now let us think about the consequences if we combine this with proposed retrospection. Draconian doesn't even begin to cover it!

String 'em up    2 thanks

Ted Numbers | | Permalink

the_Poacher wrote:
Surely anything that reduces use of avoidance schemes is to be applauded.?


So presumably you would support summary execution of a tax avoider on the whim of a tax official? Wow!