Tax Partner Newby Castleman LLP
Share this content

Accelerated Payment Notices: Why, when and how

11th Jul 2018
Tax Partner Newby Castleman LLP
Share this content

Jacquelyn Kimber and Kirsty Horobin of Newby Castleman LLP review the rules for accelerated payment notices (APN), and explain how you can challenge one.

Power shifting

Rules were introduced in Finance Act 2014 giving HMRC the power to issue notices to taxpayers demanding payment of tax (and national insurance contributions, if applicable) which HMRC believes represent the effect of a tax advantage gained from tax avoidance arrangements, where the arrangement is currently under enquiry or appeal.

Prior to these rules being enacted, in most cases involving a dispute of tax, no tax was payable until the tax enquiry or appeal had been concluded, meaning the tax benefit of the disputed arrangement lay with the taxpayer rather than HMRC. Should the tax subsequently be found to be payable, interest applied from the “normal” due to date to the date of payment.

APN conditions

An APN can be issued by HMRC in the following circumstances:

  • Where a follower notice has been issued;
  • The arrangement is notifiable under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) rules and a DOTAS scheme reference number has been issued; or
  • A general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) counteraction notice has been issued.

APNs can be issued in respect of the following taxes:

  • Income tax
  • Capital gains tax
  • Inheritance tax
  • Corporation tax
  • Stamp duty land tax
  • Annual tax on enveloped dwellings

Accelerated partner payment notices (APPNs) apply to partners where the deemed tax advantage arose from activities of the partnership, and these follow closely the rules applicable to APNs.

What the notice will say

The APN will include details of the conditions that HMRC believes are satisfied in order to make the APN valid. It will also detail the amount payable and how this has been calculated, and information on how to make representations to HMRC should the recipient of the APN disagree.

Paying the amount due

On receipt of an APN, the taxpayer has 90 days in which to take action. If the taxpayer accepts the APN, the amount demanded should be settled, in full, within the 90 day period. The amount can be settled over a number of payments as long as the full amount has been received by HMRC before the end of the 90 day period.

APNs are also included within HMRC’s direct recovery of debt provisions allowing HMRC to collect debts which exceed £1,000 directly from taxpayers’ bank accounts where certain criteria are met.

How to challenge

There is no right of appeal against an APN. However, the taxpayer may make representations to HMRC if they wish to dispute either the amount demanded or the validity of the APN, if they believe that the conditions for issue have not been met. These representations must be made in writing within the 90 day period.

HMRC will issue a reply which may confirm or withdraw the APN. If the APN is confirmed and the taxpayer still disagrees, with no right of appeal, a judicial review is the only route available to the taxpayer. If the APN is confirmed and the taxpayer wishes to make payment, the payment must be settled by the later of 90 days from receipt of the original APN or 30 days from the letter from HMRC confirming the APN.

Penalty position

Failure to pay the amount due or lodge representations with HMRC within the 90 day period can result in late payment penalties, and surcharges being levied by HMRC. Enforcement action may also be taken to recover the tax due.

The manner in which penalties are levied varies dependent upon the type of tax in question and whether a tax enquiry is currently in progress. However, taxpayers will find themselves in a penalty situation fairly quickly if the tax is not paid within the 90 day period. The taxpayer may appeal against any penalties applied, and apply to have them cancelled should they have a reasonable excuse for the failure to pay on time.

Conclusion of dispute

The issue of an APN does not conclude the matter with HMRC nor is it confirmation that the tax planning resulting in the deemed tax advantage has been unsuccessful: it is merely a payment on account. Should the taxpayer go on to win their case, any tax paid under the APN will be refunded with interest. However, this will be subject to any further appeal being made by HMRC which may delay any repayment. Conversely, if the taxpayer loses his case, additional tax may become payable over and above that already paid under the APN.

The payment of tax in advance of the enquiry or appeal being concluded, HMRC state, takes away the cash flow advantage gained through use of the tax avoidance scheme in question. It is also an attempt to discourage taxpayers from the use of such schemes. Since the introduction of HMRC’s powers to demand payment of tax in advance, rather than wait for the enquiry or appeal to be finalised, many taxpayers may instead look to negotiate a settlement with HMRC in order to conclude the matter.

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By G Webber CTA
11th Jul 2018 13:12

The article is factually correct and certainly follows the policy justification for APNs but the reality is very different.
APNs are issued for tax "in dispute". That is before a Tribunal has decided the issue. That is based just on HMRC's internal view, an analysis that is usually not in the APN notice.
So, it's enough for HMRC to say that they think tax is underpaid and issue a demand that cannot be appealed. A comparison might be a discovery assessment which at least has the advantage of being able to be appealed.

When APNs for several years arrive at the same time, a 90 day payments window, coming without notice and after silence for years, is a shock and no doubt deliberately so.

Another example of max tax rather than the "right tax at the right time" being the end goal for HMRC.

Thanks (2)
By timothyvogel
12th Jul 2018 10:47

And the follower notices can be on tenuous grounds. A client had one claiming they had used on the loan back schemes, but he had never actually taken the money, he used the "umbrella company" but only for payments and took 85% of the profit in salary, the rest in dividend and only used the scheme because his "employer" insisted on an umbrella company. Demand for 30K tax that eventually turned out to be zero. The policy argument is valid but only if they keep to the spirit of the law and chase actual tax evasion rather than suspected.

Thanks (0)
By Ian McTernan CTA
12th Jul 2018 12:22

It's a sledgehammer approach that is very dangerous in HMRC hands, but it does have a deterrent approach if the people it is supposed to deter have ever heard of it- which most haven't.

Thanks (0)