In HMRC v Dr M Charlton (and related appeals) (Upper Tribunal – 20 December) an individual (C) had entered into an avoidance scheme in 2006/07. The scheme was broadly similar to that which was subsequently held to be ineffective in Drummond v HMRC [2009] STC 2206. In July 2009 HMRC issued a discovery assessment under TMA 1970 s 29. C appealed contending that the assessment had been issued outside the statutory time limit. The First-tier Tribunal accepted this contention and allowed the appeal. Judge Nowlan held that there had been a discovery within TMA 1970 s 29(1) but that the information provided with C’s return was sufficient to show that ‘no officer could have missed the point that an artificial tax avoidance scheme had been implemented’. Any officer reviewing the return ‘should then...
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 Dr M Charlton (and related appeals) (Upper Tribunal – 20 December) an individual (C) had entered into an avoidance scheme in 2006/07. The scheme was broadly similar to that which was subsequently held to be ineffective in Drummond v HMRC [2009] STC 2206. In July 2009 HMRC issued a discovery assessment under TMA 1970 s 29. C appealed contending that the assessment had been issued outside the statutory time limit. The First-tier Tribunal accepted this contention and allowed the appeal. Judge Nowlan held that there had been a discovery within TMA 1970 s 29(1) but that the information provided with C’s return was sufficient to show that ‘no officer could have missed the point that an artificial tax avoidance scheme had been implemented’. Any officer reviewing the return ‘should then...
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:
