In D Beadle v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 544 (5 July 2017) the FTT found that it does not have jurisdiction in a penalty appeal relating to a partner payment notice (PPN) to consider whether HMRC should have made a different determination of the accelerated partner payment.
Mr Beadle (a member of the Ingenious Film Partners LLP) appealed against a penalty imposed for the late payment of sums due under a PPN. He had made an application under the FTT procedure rules r 5(3)(d) for HMRC to disclose information to him. He believed that information would enable him to establish that the ‘understated partner tax’ calculated by HMRC for the purposes of the PPN was not lawfully due.
The FTT therefore had to determine as a preliminary issue to the substantive appeal whether it had jurisdiction to determine...
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 D Beadle v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 544 (5 July 2017) the FTT found that it does not have jurisdiction in a penalty appeal relating to a partner payment notice (PPN) to consider whether HMRC should have made a different determination of the accelerated partner payment.
Mr Beadle (a member of the Ingenious Film Partners LLP) appealed against a penalty imposed for the late payment of sums due under a PPN. He had made an application under the FTT procedure rules r 5(3)(d) for HMRC to disclose information to him. He believed that information would enable him to establish that the ‘understated partner tax’ calculated by HMRC for the purposes of the PPN was not lawfully due.
The FTT therefore had to determine as a preliminary issue to the substantive appeal whether it had jurisdiction to determine...
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:
