In HMRC v Romie Tager [2015] UT 40 (6 March 2015) the UT imposed nearly 100% of the tax due as a penalty.
Mr Tager had submitted his tax returns for the years 2008/09 2009/10 and 2010/11 during the course of April 2012. He had then failed to comply with information notices relating to those returns. In the meantime Mr Tager’s father had died and Mr Tager had become liable to IHT. Again information notices were issued in relation to the IHT return and penalties for non-compliance were imposed. HMRC had applied for permission from the UT to impose a tax-related penalty (FA 2008 Sch 36 para 50).
At a direction hearing in February 2014 the UT had decided to give Mr Tager one last chance. Mr Tager had been given a few more weeks to comply and had given an undertaking to...
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 Romie Tager [2015] UT 40 (6 March 2015) the UT imposed nearly 100% of the tax due as a penalty.
Mr Tager had submitted his tax returns for the years 2008/09 2009/10 and 2010/11 during the course of April 2012. He had then failed to comply with information notices relating to those returns. In the meantime Mr Tager’s father had died and Mr Tager had become liable to IHT. Again information notices were issued in relation to the IHT return and penalties for non-compliance were imposed. HMRC had applied for permission from the UT to impose a tax-related penalty (FA 2008 Sch 36 para 50).
At a direction hearing in February 2014 the UT had decided to give Mr Tager one last chance. Mr Tager had been given a few more weeks to comply and had given an undertaking to...
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:
