InHMRC v J Ariel[2016] EWHC 1674 (08 July 2016) the High Court found that the bankruptcy court had not had jurisdiction to deliver an order in relation to an information notice issued by HMRC (FA 2008 Sch 36).
HMRC had written to Mr Ariel informing him that it was about to seek permission from the FTT to issue him with a third party notice (FA 2008 Sch 36) as trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Halabi. The FTT had adjourned the hearing pending consideration by the bankruptcy court (under the Insolvency Act 1986 s 303) of Mr Ariel’s application for clarification of the documents he should disclose to HMRC. The registrar found that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to consider what documents should and should not be produced and on what terms pursuant to an information notice. She also found that...
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:
InHMRC v J Ariel[2016] EWHC 1674 (08 July 2016) the High Court found that the bankruptcy court had not had jurisdiction to deliver an order in relation to an information notice issued by HMRC (FA 2008 Sch 36).
HMRC had written to Mr Ariel informing him that it was about to seek permission from the FTT to issue him with a third party notice (FA 2008 Sch 36) as trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Halabi. The FTT had adjourned the hearing pending consideration by the bankruptcy court (under the Insolvency Act 1986 s 303) of Mr Ariel’s application for clarification of the documents he should disclose to HMRC. The registrar found that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to consider what documents should and should not be produced and on what terms pursuant to an information notice. She also found that...
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:
