In Dr AA Majid v HMRC (TC01839 – 6 March) a qualified barrister (M) who was totally blind and did not practise as a barrister sat as a part-time immigration judge. For direct tax purposes the Inland Revenue had initially treated him as an employee of the Department of Constitutional Affairs but in 2004 they accepted M’s claim that he should be treated as self-employed. Subsequently HMRC issued a ruling that M was required to register for VAT and also imposed a penalty for failing to do so. M appealed contending that he was not carrying on any business. The First-tier Tribunal accepted this contention and allowed M’s appeal. Judge Clark observed that as a tribunal judge M was holding an office so that it was ‘difficult to understand’ why the Revenue had accepted...
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 Dr AA Majid v HMRC (TC01839 – 6 March) a qualified barrister (M) who was totally blind and did not practise as a barrister sat as a part-time immigration judge. For direct tax purposes the Inland Revenue had initially treated him as an employee of the Department of Constitutional Affairs but in 2004 they accepted M’s claim that he should be treated as self-employed. Subsequently HMRC issued a ruling that M was required to register for VAT and also imposed a penalty for failing to do so. M appealed contending that he was not carrying on any business. The First-tier Tribunal accepted this contention and allowed M’s appeal. Judge Clark observed that as a tribunal judge M was holding an office so that it was ‘difficult to understand’ why the Revenue had accepted...
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:
