In D McNulty v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 June) a chartered accountant (M) entered into a series of transactions in 1997/98 intended to produce a capital loss.
Following an enquiry HMRC rejected his loss claim and amended his self-assessment to charge additional tax of £951 790. M appealed and applied for postponement of the tax. The General Commissioners rejected the postponement application and HMRC took county court proceedings to collect the tax. The Durham County Court gave judgment for HMRC and in December 2006 M was declared bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy decided not to proceed with the appeal against the closure notice and admitted HMRC’s claim. In 2010 M sought to have his appeal heard by the First-tier Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal held that he had no ‘locus standi’ to pursue the appeal...
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 McNulty v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 June) a chartered accountant (M) entered into a series of transactions in 1997/98 intended to produce a capital loss.
Following an enquiry HMRC rejected his loss claim and amended his self-assessment to charge additional tax of £951 790. M appealed and applied for postponement of the tax. The General Commissioners rejected the postponement application and HMRC took county court proceedings to collect the tax. The Durham County Court gave judgment for HMRC and in December 2006 M was declared bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy decided not to proceed with the appeal against the closure notice and admitted HMRC’s claim. In 2010 M sought to have his appeal heard by the First-tier Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal held that he had no ‘locus standi’ to pursue the appeal...
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:
