Interesting decision on a DA procedural point:
http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j11200/TC0...
Interesting also that the law firm got wrapped on the knuckles by their regulator for successfully saving their clients all this tax!
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/simpson-millar-fined-for-part-in-4...
Replies (10)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Interesting also that the law firm got wrapped on the knuckles by their regulator for successfully saving their clients all this tax!
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/simpson-millar-fined-for-part-in-4...
I think you mean "for engaging in a tax avoidance scheme that wasn't in any way legal and only escaped being penalised because HMRC are incapable of posting letters".
I'm sure the taxpayers are delighted with having successfully avoided the tax they didn't want to pay.
The tribunal makes no statement regarding the legality of the scheme, I just inferred from what it does say about it that it wasn't legal.
It would seem the law firm offering it to clients agreed with me nine years ago when they abandoned it after using it for only ten months and it would appear the only successful appeal to be made against the assessments is on the basis that the letters weren't posted and got delayed for three years, rendering it out of time.
It's no more rubbish than alleging that
"the law firm got wrapped on the knuckles by their regulator for successfully saving their clients all this tax"
That's interesting, because I read Duggimon's comment as being far more tongue-in-cheek than yours.
I just like to give Justin a prod when he's doing his wacky "there's one in the eye for those pesky regulators from the plucky little tax evaders" routine.
I do appreciate his posting of the interesting cases nonetheless, it's all in good fun.