Member Since: 6th Jun 2011
14th Oct 2019
Perhaps the point should be made that Robertson did not appeal against the s29 assessment which imposed the Charge itself, but only against the penalty for failure to notify. As a result, the UT could justifiably 'bottle out' of making a decision on the assessment's validity.
So as it stands it appears that s.29 assessments are not appropriate for collecting the Charge (until, of course, we have a ruling from the UT in another case).
30th Jul 2019
Rebecca's article was published 17 June and since then the Upper Tribunal have overturned the FTT's decision in Robertson in respect of whether there was any 'potential lost revenue'. Both Tribunals however agreed that Robertson did not have a reasonable excuse for failure to notify liability. Although Mrs Robertson had been claiming Child Benefit prior to the introduction of the High Income Charge and Mr Robertson was not within Self Assessment, he does seem to have been already over the £50K threshold so this Revenue 'concession' would not have assisted him anyway.
21st Feb 2018
They DID block it retrospectively - s.128(5A) ITA 2007. This case was not about whether the scheme worked but whether the Revenue's discovery was a) valid and b) on time. Due to their incompetence it was neither
4th Jul 2014
You couldn't make this up!
Reclaiming VAT on 'specialist staff'? Sounds like they may have a PAYE problem as well?
24th Apr 2014
What price confidentiality?
When, back in the last century, I was in the Revenue, we had to sign the official secrets act. Now we seem to have an outside organistion having access to all our tax correspondence.
I also don't see how these proposals are going to speed up the responses to taxpayers' letters, its seemingly only going to get the text of the taxpayer's letter onto the screen of an officer "within 48 hours" - there is no guarantee that they are going to deal with it any quicker than they do at present.
Still, I suppose this is progress and someone must feel that its better that the bad old days when post arrived on the officer's desk by about 10.00 on the morning it was received.
14th Jan 2014
You're all missing the point
The scheme may have been 'legal' but tit[***] didin't work!. Perhaps everyone should study the provisions relating to the tansfer of assets abroad (see s.714 ITA 2007 - power to enjoy the income of a non-resident person.),
24th Sep 2013
Oh, No, it wasn't!
Diana unfortunately gives credence to the statement by the author of the condoc that coding out was introduced in 2011. It has been a feature of the PAYE system for over 50 years!
18th Sep 2013
No thanks, Justin
If I pay anyone, it will be David!
18th Sep 2013
Can you enlighten me
As you were at the conference, can you explain the alledged tax saving as I can't make sense of the reported percentages (41.8% on bonus reduced to 8.4%)
To my mind as both the bonus and the increasd SMP are liable to tax and NIC, there is no tax saving.So it cannot be tax avoidance - it may be making use of the SMP refund system but that's a different matter.
8th Aug 2013
Mehjoo did not invest in a 'non-dom' avoidance scheme, that was the problem. He invested in a capital redemption scheme which failed and claimed that he should have been referred to a non-dom specialist who, in turn, would have recommended the non-dom scheme. This would have converted his UK shares into an overseas asset prior to sale and, provided the proceeds were not remitted to the UK, would have escaped CGT.
The problem faced by Purnell and his firm was that they did not appear to be aware that such a scheme was available.