In P Whight v HMRC (TC00938 – 8 February) HMRC issued a notice under FA 2008 Sch 36 para 1 to an individual (W) who had sold a substantial shareholding in a public company and had claimed that he was not resident in the UK. W appealed contending that the notice was onerous and unreasonable. The First-Tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal. Judge Shipwright observed that ‘HMRC has the right to check the position and in particular to see original documents’. He held that W ‘has not shown as a matter of fact that the information or documents are not reasonably required by the officer for the purpose of checking the taxpayer's tax position’. He also held that ‘the request is not disproportionate or onerous in the particular circumstances of the case’.
Why it matters: FA 2008 Sch 36...
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 P Whight v HMRC (TC00938 – 8 February) HMRC issued a notice under FA 2008 Sch 36 para 1 to an individual (W) who had sold a substantial shareholding in a public company and had claimed that he was not resident in the UK. W appealed contending that the notice was onerous and unreasonable. The First-Tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal. Judge Shipwright observed that ‘HMRC has the right to check the position and in particular to see original documents’. He held that W ‘has not shown as a matter of fact that the information or documents are not reasonably required by the officer for the purpose of checking the taxpayer's tax position’. He also held that ‘the request is not disproportionate or onerous in the particular circumstances of the case’.
Why it matters: FA 2008 Sch 36...
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:
