In L Hackett v HMRC [2020] UKUT 212 (TCC) (6 July) the UT refuses applicant’s argument that appeal proceedings should be carried out on the basis of a criminal rather than civil standard of proof
The appellant appealed against a preliminary decision of the FTT that: proceedings should not be stayed; the appropriate standard of proof was criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) rather than civil (balance of probabilities); and an earlier decision of the FTT in a related case should be admitted as evidence.
The case involved the giving to the appellant of a personal liability notice under FA 2007 Sch 24 para 19 in relation to a deliberate inaccuracy penalty assessed on a company (‘Intekx’) of which the appellant was the sole director. The penalty in the sum of nearly £13 million was assessed on the grounds that Intekx’s VAT...
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 L Hackett v HMRC [2020] UKUT 212 (TCC) (6 July) the UT refuses applicant’s argument that appeal proceedings should be carried out on the basis of a criminal rather than civil standard of proof
The appellant appealed against a preliminary decision of the FTT that: proceedings should not be stayed; the appropriate standard of proof was criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) rather than civil (balance of probabilities); and an earlier decision of the FTT in a related case should be admitted as evidence.
The case involved the giving to the appellant of a personal liability notice under FA 2007 Sch 24 para 19 in relation to a deliberate inaccuracy penalty assessed on a company (‘Intekx’) of which the appellant was the sole director. The penalty in the sum of nearly £13 million was assessed on the grounds that Intekx’s VAT...
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:
