The short answer to your query is "yes they would". Actually they would stay the proceedings until the Judicial review process was complete. There will probably be lots of other appeals stayed behind the same point in practice. If the JR proceedings were successful, it may be that some sort of legislative change might be made to give effect to the JR judgement. If not successful, it is likely that the appeal would be listed fairly quickly thereafter but the Tribunal Service would write to parties first asking for available dates. Then there would be a period of Case Management usually involving Directions to the parties. A period of 6-12 months as suggested by another respondent would be fairly typical. In response to another of the respondents, getting the case classified as Complex is a very high risk strategy when dealing with HMRC who have quite deep pockets when they choose to dip into them. Unless the probability of success is very high I would not go down this route (unless you or your client is similarly placed). There may still be an underlying technical or evidential question following JR, in which case it is a matter of assembling a "bundle" for the hearing as HMRC will do which would normally include a Skeleton Argument, relevant documents and correspondence, witness statements (if relevant) and relevant cases and authorities. There may also be a possibility of Mediation depending on the exact nature of the dispute. It is not always suitable for Mediation but HMRC are generally quite keen. Let me know if you need any further input.
It is irrelevant whether tax is due or not. The penalty is for late filing of the return.
Your appeal should be on the basis of reasonable excuse. In other words your client did not file the return because they did not receive it. You should produce a short witness statement signed by your client to that effect.
As mentioned by the previous reply the burden of proof is on hmrc to show they issued the penalty and they normally have difficulty doing this because everything is automated.
I agree with all the other replies. I did this quite a long time ago and the problems they have identified will undoubtedly come to pass. It is tempting to have a regular income, possibly share options of some sort and also the Kudos but there is always a price to pay. Also bear in mind that, if you don't have any options, there is no growth prospect. conversely, every new £1,000 client you get will put £800-1,200 onto your practice goodwill value.
Taxpayer information notice
I agree with leshoward. The section is certainly not designed to protect the taxpayer - far from it.Basically you have to provide any information which is "reasonably required" for the purposes of checking the taxpayer's tax position. This can be controversial when, for example, HMRC ask for personal bank statements. If you don't want to provide the information (and think you have good cause not to) you need to appeal within 30 days and explain why. HMRC will conduct a review and, if you are still not satisfied, you can appeal to the tribunal.
As les says, you would normally provide the information unless you think it falls outside what HMRC reasonably need to check the tax position.
Yes that is correct. You could start with the 2013 CJEU Case C-18/12 Mesto Zamberk v unpronounceable Czech name - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0018.... This was about single or composite supplies and the court said at para 30;
"It follows from the case-law of the Court that the predominant element must be determined from the point of view of the typical consumer."
However i would advise great caution in latching onto principles such as this. They have to be considered in relation to other principles such as economic reality, fiscal neutrality, equal treatment, legal certainty, non-discrimination, unjust enrichment, economic burden and maybe others which may in certain cases conflict.
It would be helpful to know a bit more about the particular research you are doing and the factual background.
Failure to notify chargeability
Euan is absolutely correct. There is no requirement to notify chargeability in this case if the facts are as you have stated. My only comment would be that your grounds of appeal (against the penalty determination) are simply that there was no requirement to notify changeability. You should mention S.7(5)TMA 1970 in the appeal and also confirm that there was no other income except PAYE income. This should be sufficient to get the penalties removed.
if HMRC still refuse, the First Tier Tribunal will give HMRC short shrift and will allow your appeal.
Hmmm. Not sure.
the option to amend is not affected by submission of the later year. If it can't be done via the website a letter to HMRC will suffice. Keep proof of posting and send it recorded delivery.
I'm sure you are right - seems a strange system though.
plc dormant co/audit
Being a plc does not necessarily involve being quoted on either AIM or the main market. This sounds like an unquoted plc.
A plc cannot claim exemption from an audit unless it is dormant.
Any acquisition of shares is likely to remove the "dormant" exemption for the year the transaction takes place. This is probably unavoidable.