PBW dodges £14m para 50, Sch 36 tax penalty bullet

Thanks to HMRC incompetence

Didn't find your answer?

But well done to his barrister here: Paul Baxendale-Walker v The Commissioners for HMRC - Find case law - The National Archives , https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/tcc/2024/154

 

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By richard thomas
13th Jun 2024 13:36

Whatever one may think of "PBW" it intuitively seems like overkill to go from £100 penalty to a £14m one for not disclosing information or documents. And I love the spurious accuracy of imposing a penalty of £14,031,851.01.

Thanks (1)
Replying to richard thomas:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
13th Jun 2024 13:55

Yes, but no doubt in this case it had become ‘personalised’(as with HMRC's overzealousness in similarly pursing others engaged in industrial scale tax avoidance schemes).

The £14m would not have been paid anyway of course (his wealth is surely all in offshore "Red Cross" type trusts with flee clauses etc.)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
14th Jun 2024 16:26

Interestingly, the Inspector's name (the one who I assume cocked things up) was anonymised. See: https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/p-baxendale-walker-v-hmrc-

I've not seen that happen before (one would assume there's safety in numbers).

That said, I was at a tax seminar this week, where an ex Inspector said the one thing HMRC hate more than not collecting (the right amount of) tax is bad publicity.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By richard thomas
14th Jun 2024 18:12

It's a dangerous precedent to anonymise simply because it would cause embarrassment: HMRC didn't seek anonymisation when a sadly now dead former colleague of mine in the LBS made a similar mistake in Credit Suisse.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
20th Jun 2024 10:56

JB beats DN to it, again! His criticism of PBW is of course wholly irrelevant as to the penalty's validity, which shows DN's undue bias if not legal ignorance here, whereas in my above unbiased reporting I am perfectly happy to congratulate PBW's barrister on a job well done (indeed, perhaps I should also congratulate the judge for not being unduly biased against the taxpayer, unlike DN).

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/19/baxendale_walker_hmrc_mistakes_14m_p...

There is also no mention by DN of potential overzealousness by the HMRC Inspector as to such an apparently unprecedentedly, crazily high penalty.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By richard thomas
20th Jun 2024 19:02

Maybe he did, but at least DN said something (quite a lot in fact) about the case, not just that his barrister did well.

But DN's article does not purport to be just a case report, whereas your comment isn't even that.

Thanks (3)
Replying to richard thomas:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
21st Jun 2024 09:06

I would disagree with that "purport" point. DN has an agenda here after all*. He could for example state at the top that his commentary that it should not be regarded as an unbiased case report. He has reported on other tax cases as if he's giving accurate and reliable case reports. As for my succinct and unbiased commentary, all you have to do is read the case, no more, no less, to fully understand it (it ain't complicated), without DN's ultra left-wing biased bells & whistles to distract, confuse and basically brainwash you into his la-la land way of thinking.

*Why do you think the left wing media love to quote him unceasingly and unthinkingly all the time and don't you think he knows that and comments accordingly as if his word on all things tax related is the gospel?

Let's agree to disagree anyway.

Thanks (0)
Replying to richard thomas:
By Ruddles
21st Jun 2024 14:21

:¬)

Thanks (0)