The case of W Archer v HMRC [2022] UKUT 61 (TCC) (4 March 2022) involved an immensely complex procedural tangle which can only be understood by wrapping your head in a cold towel for several hours.
The background here was the consequences of the failure of two avoidance schemes in which the taxpayer had participated. It had been established as early at 2009 that the schemes did not work but the dispute over whether HMRC had followed the correct procedures to create an obligation for the taxpayer to pay the tax (which amounted to over £14m) has taken another 13 years involving judicial review hearings an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court and a previous appeal to the FTT.
Essentially the dispute was over whether the closure notices issued by HMRC at the end of the enquiry were properly made out but also...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
The case of W Archer v HMRC [2022] UKUT 61 (TCC) (4 March 2022) involved an immensely complex procedural tangle which can only be understood by wrapping your head in a cold towel for several hours.
The background here was the consequences of the failure of two avoidance schemes in which the taxpayer had participated. It had been established as early at 2009 that the schemes did not work but the dispute over whether HMRC had followed the correct procedures to create an obligation for the taxpayer to pay the tax (which amounted to over £14m) has taken another 13 years involving judicial review hearings an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court and a previous appeal to the FTT.
Essentially the dispute was over whether the closure notices issued by HMRC at the end of the enquiry were properly made out but also...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
