In HMRC v Embiricos [2020] UKUT 370 (TCC) (reported in Tax Journal 15 January 2021) the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed HMRC’s appeal holding that HMRC could not be compelled to issue a partial closure notice (PCN) denying the taxpayer’s claim to the remittance basis without specifying the amount of tax due.
The UT agreed with HMRC’s position which relied heavily on the Court of Appeal decision in R (oao Archer) v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1962. That case had determined that a closure notice was not valid unless it stated the amended amount of tax for which the taxpayer was liable. While the decision predated the introduction of the rules for PCNs those rules were implemented as a modification to and as part of the existing closure notice regime. Therefore...
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 HMRC v Embiricos [2020] UKUT 370 (TCC) (reported in Tax Journal 15 January 2021) the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed HMRC’s appeal holding that HMRC could not be compelled to issue a partial closure notice (PCN) denying the taxpayer’s claim to the remittance basis without specifying the amount of tax due.
The UT agreed with HMRC’s position which relied heavily on the Court of Appeal decision in R (oao Archer) v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1962. That case had determined that a closure notice was not valid unless it stated the amended amount of tax for which the taxpayer was liable. While the decision predated the introduction of the rules for PCNs those rules were implemented as a modification to and as part of the existing closure notice regime. Therefore...
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:
