Share this content

Interesting loan interest WHT case

https://files.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/03103544/Full-Decision-TC.2019.04625-Hargreaves

Didn't find your answer?

Lots of issues and clarifies some of what was unclear from Ardmore and Davies cases (as well as what is meant by yearly interest):

https://files.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/03103544/Full-Decis...

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By richard thomas
04th Nov 2021 18:47

I agree it's interesting, mainly in respect of the DTA issues. But I'm not sure in what sense it clarifies Davies, as it distinguishes it, and I don't think Ardmore needs clarification. Anyhow it's a good decision, as would be expected from Tony Beare given his expertise in the area as well as his tax knowledge.

Thanks (0)
Replying to richard thomas:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
05th Nov 2021 16:38

Davies badly explained how DTA relief claims worked per my comment here: https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/non-uk-resident-and-uk-state...

I don't think Ardmore extensively considered factors like exclusive jurisdiction clauses, creditor residence etc.

Incidentally, I am due to give a talk to STPG on ATED daily late filing penalties later this month, where I note the current retrospective notice confusion has been 100% caused by the UT's total misreading out of context of your following para 60 FTT comment in Donaldson:

“This clearly indicates that Parliament intended the power to back-date a notice to be limited to cases where HMRC would not know the date the tax return was due.”

If only they had read para 61 (and the preceding paras) which clarified that that back-dating (under para 4(3)) applied only to the the penalty calculation start date in the notice and not the date of the notice itself. Crazy stuff and clearly not a good UT decision (albeit obiter).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By richard thomas
05th Nov 2021 17:08

I assume you mean the UT in Donaldson, or has the ATED issue now been heard by the UT?

What rankled me more about Donaldson was that Barbara Mosedale (and above) accepted the nonsensical HMRC line that a committee of revenue officials, acting before Sch 55 had come into force, could make a general decision always to charge the daily penalties in all cases, ignorant of the reason for the special approach in para 4.

It's because of this that I always held that daily penalties on returns relating to taxes enacted after 2011 and so not in the Table in para 1, like NTCGT, ATED and the like were invalid as the committee could not have made a decision about a tax that didn't exist. In NRCGT at least HMRC dropped daily penalties, probably as a result of my decisions.

I'd be interested to see a copy of your talk.

Thanks (0)
Replying to richard thomas:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
05th Nov 2021 17:28

Yes; I mean Donaldson UT and the ATED issue is now listed in the UT. I reluctantly agreed with Mosedale on para 4(1)(b) (let's not argue about that, especially as CoA agreed with her) and yes; your IHT/SDLT return comments re para 4(3) probably helped HMRC decide not to apply daily penalties re NRCGT.

The recent FTT Priory decision on ATED daily late filing penalties is complete & utter garbage, and was based on the UT's wrong obiter on 4(3) in Donaldson and a total misreading of what the CoA said (and/or did not say) about that.

I will let you have a copy in due course if you PM me.

Thanks (0)
Share this content