In R (on the application of Dunne) v HMRC [2015] EWHC 1204 (31 March 2015), the High Court granted interim relief in relation to partner payment notices (PPNs), in the limited terms accepted by HMRC.
This was an application for interim relief in the context of an application for judicial review which had been brought by the claimants challenging PPNs issued by HMRC. A PPN is an APN (accelerated payment notice) issued to a partnership under FA 2014 Sch 32. The PPN regime confers no statutory right of appeal to a specialist tribunal and the only way to challenge a PPN is to apply for a judicial review – or to rely on the invalidity of the PPN as a defence to any subsequent enforcement decisions.
The High Court expressed doubt as to whether it did have jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the facts of the case, given the mandatory and unambiguous language of the legislation. In any event, relying on CC & C [2014] EWCA Civ 1653, it would not exercise such power as there was no reason for it to interfere with the statutory scheme. The scheme presupposed that HMRC would comply with its statutory duties. Any questions as to whether there was an excuse for the non-payment of penalties should be dealt with by the FTT, if and when HMRC had made a decision on it.
The High Court therefore only granted limited relief in the form of an order that, in the event that the claimants had established hardship, HMRC could not, without first applying to the court, take steps to enforce any sum due and payable under any PPN.
Why it matters: The case follows a similar line to that adopted by the High Court in Nigel Rowe and others v HMRC (unreported). Unless a taxpayer can establish hardship, he will have to pay the tax demanded under an APN.
For a review of this decision and Rowe, see the article in the link below.
In R (on the application of Dunne) v HMRC [2015] EWHC 1204 (31 March 2015), the High Court granted interim relief in relation to partner payment notices (PPNs), in the limited terms accepted by HMRC.
This was an application for interim relief in the context of an application for judicial review which had been brought by the claimants challenging PPNs issued by HMRC. A PPN is an APN (accelerated payment notice) issued to a partnership under FA 2014 Sch 32. The PPN regime confers no statutory right of appeal to a specialist tribunal and the only way to challenge a PPN is to apply for a judicial review – or to rely on the invalidity of the PPN as a defence to any subsequent enforcement decisions.
The High Court expressed doubt as to whether it did have jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the facts of the case, given the mandatory and unambiguous language of the legislation. In any event, relying on CC & C [2014] EWCA Civ 1653, it would not exercise such power as there was no reason for it to interfere with the statutory scheme. The scheme presupposed that HMRC would comply with its statutory duties. Any questions as to whether there was an excuse for the non-payment of penalties should be dealt with by the FTT, if and when HMRC had made a decision on it.
The High Court therefore only granted limited relief in the form of an order that, in the event that the claimants had established hardship, HMRC could not, without first applying to the court, take steps to enforce any sum due and payable under any PPN.
Why it matters: The case follows a similar line to that adopted by the High Court in Nigel Rowe and others v HMRC (unreported). Unless a taxpayer can establish hardship, he will have to pay the tax demanded under an APN.
For a review of this decision and Rowe, see the article in the link below.
