In C Moore v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 22 June) HMRC imposed penalties under TMA 1970 s 95 on an individual (M) who had underdeclared bank interest. The penalties were imposed at the rate of 55% of the evaded tax.
The First-tier Tribunal upheld the penalties in principle finding that M had been negligent but reduced the penalties to 25% of the evaded tax.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed M’s appeal against this decision.
Why it matters: In the 1856 case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co Baron Alderson defined ‘negligence’ as ‘the omission to do something which a prudent and reasonable man would do’.
Although this is a very old case it is still a leading authority with regard to the interpretation of TMA 1970 ss 29 and...
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:
In C Moore v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 22 June) HMRC imposed penalties under TMA 1970 s 95 on an individual (M) who had underdeclared bank interest. The penalties were imposed at the rate of 55% of the evaded tax.
The First-tier Tribunal upheld the penalties in principle finding that M had been negligent but reduced the penalties to 25% of the evaded tax.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed M’s appeal against this decision.
Why it matters: In the 1856 case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co Baron Alderson defined ‘negligence’ as ‘the omission to do something which a prudent and reasonable man would do’.
Although this is a very old case it is still a leading authority with regard to the interpretation of TMA 1970 ss 29 and...
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:
