Judicial review denies CIOT member’s challenge
The promoter of a failed SDLT scheme tried unsuccessfully to challenge the CIOT handling of disciplinary procedures after he was found not to have given clients proper risk advice. The Court found that judicial review is not application to the CIOT.
Replies (12)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I don't think this has been reported properly, as this JR case had nowt to do with the previous TDB matter. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1069.html
I wonder who the Counsel is in para 100. Does anyone know?
The accounting profession should show strong disapproval of the contrived schemes such people push. When it is not clear why a step exists, other than to avoid tax, it should not be assumed acceptable.
Government needs to simplify tax and reduce scope for abuse
Will the next scandal be dodgy claims for R&D Enhanced capital expenditure allowances? I have had clients such as a builder offered R&D credit claim services. The providers of the services say claims would go through unchallenged. There appears to be no real R&D being done.
The problem is PII
Insurance exists
If a tax payer thinks that there is a legitimate tax saving opportunity that was not mentioned, said tax payer will be compensated by PII even if it was a bit grey.
You've got that the wrong way round I think. Tax advisers tend to get sued for their clients overpaying, not underpaying tax. Mehjoo v Harben Barker is a good example. As far as I know there were accordingly no PII issues in the above TDB case.
Just to be clear, the TDB disciplinary proceedings on the ULRICA scheme (which concluded in March 2020) and the judicial review judgment (handed down in April 2021) are unrelated.
CIOT commented on the JR judgment at https://www.tax.org.uk/chartered-institute-welcomes-judicial-review-judg...
George Crozier (CIOT)
I thought the name was familiar. It seems Mr Hannah has a habit of losing tax cases:
https://www.todaysconveyancer.co.uk/main-news/advisor-fined-sdlt-avoidance/
One has to question whether such blatantly contrived and ill founded schemes peddled by questionable outfits and practitioners should actually be pursued as evasion through criminal code. I've reviewed less reprehensible cases than this which have been prosecuted as such.
Purveyors of tax artifice who seek to hide behind an irresponsible, dubious and untested QCs opinion would soon be scuttling back under their rocks.
I agree
The problem is not 'accountants@ selling dodgy schemes
It is rent a quote QCs
For QCs the risk is trivial compared to the price of knowingly dubious opinions
Presumably this 'adviser' did dozens if not hundreds of these schemes, charging many thousands at a time.
Fines of £5,000 and £5,000 costs is laughable.
Meanwhile some struggling sole practitioner does something wrong and gets double that fine and £15,000 costs.
It's not exactly going to discourage promoters of dodgy schemes, is it?
One day HMRC will realise they should employ some of us people out in the real world to help design a tax system fit for purpose and to catch all the dodgy schemes touted around.
To be fair, the TDB case involved the same SDLT scheme as in the link below, where you will note s75A failed to bite for procedural reasons and the taxpayer only lost due to the usual thing where judges stretch the meaning of legislation (with little if any justification) against tax avoiders to help HMRC: https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/interesting-sdlt-subsale-case