In a decision made last year but only published this month the Upper Tribunal (UT) in Baxendale-Walker v HMRC [2024] UKUT 154 (TCC) took a detailed look at the penalty provisions which give teeth to HMRC’s information gathering powers contained in FA 2008 Sch 36. In doing so the UT reached some important conclusions regarding the point at which a taxpayer is exposed to the risk of a tax-geared penalty the extent to which HMRC can vary an information notice after it has been issued and what it means for a penalty to be ‘imposed’.
The case concerned an application by HMRC to impose a tax geared penalty on Paul Baxendale-Walker (‘PBW’) for non-compliance...
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 a decision made last year but only published this month the Upper Tribunal (UT) in Baxendale-Walker v HMRC [2024] UKUT 154 (TCC) took a detailed look at the penalty provisions which give teeth to HMRC’s information gathering powers contained in FA 2008 Sch 36. In doing so the UT reached some important conclusions regarding the point at which a taxpayer is exposed to the risk of a tax-geared penalty the extent to which HMRC can vary an information notice after it has been issued and what it means for a penalty to be ‘imposed’.
The case concerned an application by HMRC to impose a tax geared penalty on Paul Baxendale-Walker (‘PBW’) for non-compliance...
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: