Prevailing practice tightened in EBT case

Editor
AccountingWEB.co.uk
Share this content
4

The concept of prevailing practice was recast in more restrictive terms by when a first tier tribunal turned down an appeal by a company that claimed tax relief on contributions to an employee benefits trust.

The tribunal in Boyer Allen Investment Services v HMRC heard that the company had made payments of more than £27m to an employee trust for several years, and making deductions from its corporation tax due for those amounts.

In July 2005, however, HMRC decided that under s43 of the Finance Act 1989 the EBT payments were not deductible until what it saw as employee emoluments were paid out. Discovery assessments were raised for 2000 and 2001 amounting to nearly £11.5m in tax and accrued interest.

The point of prevailing practice is to prevent HMRC from recovering underpaid tax where tax relief was overclaimed (TMA 1970), explained Anne Fairpo in her 24 September podcast.

“Essentially what tribunal said was that just because HMRC believe a piece of legislation should be interpreted in one way, and practitioners believe the same, that doesn't mean that this is prevailing practice,” Fairpo explained.

 

Please Login or Register to read the full article

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
08th Oct 2012 12:27

judges making the law again

bah humbug

Thanks (0)
avatar
08th Oct 2012 12:56

Discovery Assessment

Can anybody realistically explain to me how HMRC can justify a "Discovery" when the payment in question has been staring them in the face from the submitted accounts for several years ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
10th Oct 2012 11:39

Here we go again

I had always thought that if suffcient information was provided in the accounts, such that HMRC would be able to raise a query thereon, but chose not to so do within statutory time limits. then the expense item stood as approved. This depended on the information being sufficient to clearly explain the nature of the payment. I beleive there are long standing appeal decisions on this. In this case the size of the numbers matter.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
10th Oct 2012 11:51

how can this be right

“Essentially what tribunal said was that just because HMRC believe a piece of legislation should be interpreted in one way, and practitioners believe the same, that doesn't mean that this is prevailing practice,” 

 

what planet are these judges on - i note that they are taking legal advice (from whom) and thinking of taking the gov to court over the fact that they will have to make contributions to their pensions.

welcome to the real world m'luds take your head out of the clouds

Thanks (0)