In Hughes v HMRC, HMRC and the CPS successfully fought off a civil action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in a public office brought by a taxpayer who was investigated, prosecuted and subsequently acquitted of involvement in an alleged share loss relief fraud. However, in doing so, a litany of prosecution errors is exposed in the judgment. The High Court’s analysis of HSBC’s role as the lender supporting investment arrangements giving rise to tax losses is particularly interesting and whether it gave rise to a reasonable line of inquiry under the criminal disclosure rules.
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 Hughes v HMRC, HMRC and the CPS successfully fought off a civil action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in a public office brought by a taxpayer who was investigated, prosecuted and subsequently acquitted of involvement in an alleged share loss relief fraud. However, in doing so, a litany of prosecution errors is exposed in the judgment. The High Court’s analysis of HSBC’s role as the lender supporting investment arrangements giving rise to tax losses is particularly interesting and whether it gave rise to a reasonable line of inquiry under the criminal disclosure rules.
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:
