A real mixture – that is the joy of tax. We recently had the Court of Appeal’s judgment in BlueCrest [2025] EWCA Civ 23 (on the salaried members’ rules), which will keep me busy as it returns to the First-tier Tribunal for a remitted hearing. Alongside that, I am dealing with non-dom changes on one day and litigating a remuneration planning arrangement the next. This not only makes the work enjoyable but allows me to develop ideas and approaches using experiences in multiple different areas.
From a litigation perspective, I am delighted by the recent judicial encouragement for all members of the counsel team to take part in the oral advocacy, particularly where they have contributed to the written arguments. This has obvious advantages for the advocates in gaining experience, but also benefits for clients in bringing different perspectives and styles to the case.
No one is perfect – everyone will have had ups and downs in their careers, however polished they seem now. I think it can be really helpful to talk with colleagues about the less visible challenges we face, to dispel the impression that a successful career is always plain sailing. For example, the Revenue Bar Association recently held two mental health events with Dr Anna Colton which included barristers and clerks sharing their own experiences, and I hope others were able to draw strength from that conversation.
As chair of our pupillage committee, I would hate to see people put off applying because their CV did not fit a certain template or that the difficulties they had faced made them less likely to succeed at the bar.
Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (t/a Nexus) v National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers [2024] UKSC 37, which James Kirby of Ten Old Square brought to my attention. It is not a tax case, but it could be a very positive development for taxpayers in a number of cases. The issue of particular interest was whether the Employment Tribunal could proceed on the basis that an employment contract had been rectified (‘equity looks on as done that which ought to be done’) – and the court held that it could.
A number of taxpayers have sought to rely on similar arguments in the tax tribunals, and the issue can arise, for example, where there is a mistake in the drafting of a document or where a taxpayer has mistakenly triggered a tax charge by contributing to an otherwise protected pension fund or trust.
The UT in Lobler [2015] UKUT 152 (TCC) and the FTT in Hymanson [2018] UKFTT 667 (TC) considered that the tax tribunals could equally treat an agreement as rectified or rescinded without a court order to that effect. More recently, however, the FTT declined to follow Hymanson in Lefort [2024] UKFTT 926 (TC). It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court’s judgment strengthens similar arguments in the tax tribunals in the future.
The obvious headlines are VAT on school fees, employer’s NIC, non-domiciliaries and business property relief particularly for farmers. One rather sad detail – felt keenly by those it affects – was the scrapping of the previous government’s proposal to amend the High Income Child Benefit Charge from an individual threshold to a household threshold.
Tax law is usually about words not numbers, but when I was a new barrister I very much enjoyed doing an Open University maths degree in the evenings. I wanted to make a joke here about complex analysis, but I’ve been told it would only be met with imaginary laughter (I was strongly advised against this).
A real mixture – that is the joy of tax. We recently had the Court of Appeal’s judgment in BlueCrest [2025] EWCA Civ 23 (on the salaried members’ rules), which will keep me busy as it returns to the First-tier Tribunal for a remitted hearing. Alongside that, I am dealing with non-dom changes on one day and litigating a remuneration planning arrangement the next. This not only makes the work enjoyable but allows me to develop ideas and approaches using experiences in multiple different areas.
From a litigation perspective, I am delighted by the recent judicial encouragement for all members of the counsel team to take part in the oral advocacy, particularly where they have contributed to the written arguments. This has obvious advantages for the advocates in gaining experience, but also benefits for clients in bringing different perspectives and styles to the case.
No one is perfect – everyone will have had ups and downs in their careers, however polished they seem now. I think it can be really helpful to talk with colleagues about the less visible challenges we face, to dispel the impression that a successful career is always plain sailing. For example, the Revenue Bar Association recently held two mental health events with Dr Anna Colton which included barristers and clerks sharing their own experiences, and I hope others were able to draw strength from that conversation.
As chair of our pupillage committee, I would hate to see people put off applying because their CV did not fit a certain template or that the difficulties they had faced made them less likely to succeed at the bar.
Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (t/a Nexus) v National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers [2024] UKSC 37, which James Kirby of Ten Old Square brought to my attention. It is not a tax case, but it could be a very positive development for taxpayers in a number of cases. The issue of particular interest was whether the Employment Tribunal could proceed on the basis that an employment contract had been rectified (‘equity looks on as done that which ought to be done’) – and the court held that it could.
A number of taxpayers have sought to rely on similar arguments in the tax tribunals, and the issue can arise, for example, where there is a mistake in the drafting of a document or where a taxpayer has mistakenly triggered a tax charge by contributing to an otherwise protected pension fund or trust.
The UT in Lobler [2015] UKUT 152 (TCC) and the FTT in Hymanson [2018] UKFTT 667 (TC) considered that the tax tribunals could equally treat an agreement as rectified or rescinded without a court order to that effect. More recently, however, the FTT declined to follow Hymanson in Lefort [2024] UKFTT 926 (TC). It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court’s judgment strengthens similar arguments in the tax tribunals in the future.
The obvious headlines are VAT on school fees, employer’s NIC, non-domiciliaries and business property relief particularly for farmers. One rather sad detail – felt keenly by those it affects – was the scrapping of the previous government’s proposal to amend the High Income Child Benefit Charge from an individual threshold to a household threshold.
Tax law is usually about words not numbers, but when I was a new barrister I very much enjoyed doing an Open University maths degree in the evenings. I wanted to make a joke here about complex analysis, but I’ve been told it would only be met with imaginary laughter (I was strongly advised against this).