In S Verma v HMRC (TC01574 – 1 December) a bank employee (V) failed to declare various items of income from his current and previous employer on his 2008/09 return. When HMRC discovered this it imposed a penalty under FA 2007 Sch 24 at the rate of 15% of the potential lost revenue. V appealed contending that the penalty contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal. However Judge Berner criticised HMRC’s citation of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (Ex D 1856 11 Ex 781) as an authority on the concept of ‘negligence’ holding that ‘reliance on a 19th-century authority on negligence in a civil claim can hardly be regarded as authoritative in the context of the interpretation of a statutory provision for tax...
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 S Verma v HMRC (TC01574 – 1 December) a bank employee (V) failed to declare various items of income from his current and previous employer on his 2008/09 return. When HMRC discovered this it imposed a penalty under FA 2007 Sch 24 at the rate of 15% of the potential lost revenue. V appealed contending that the penalty contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal. However Judge Berner criticised HMRC’s citation of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (Ex D 1856 11 Ex 781) as an authority on the concept of ‘negligence’ holding that ‘reliance on a 19th-century authority on negligence in a civil claim can hardly be regarded as authoritative in the context of the interpretation of a statutory provision for tax...
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:
