Closure notice and notice under FA 1998 Sch 18 para 34(2A)
In Spring Capital v HMRC [2016] UKUT 264 (10 June 2016) the UT found that a notice under FA 1998 Sch 18 para 34 (2A) did not have to be issued at the same time as a closure notice.
HMRC had denied the company’s claims for the carry forward of losses under ICTA 1988 s 343 and for relief under the intangible fixed asset rules in respect of the purchase and amortisation of goodwill. It had sought to do so in closure notices in respect of enquiries opened into Spring Capital’s company tax returns for 2007 and 2008. HMRC now accepted that the closure notice issued in June 2010 in respect of the 2008 period might not be valid because the notice of enquiry for that period had not been delivered to Spring Capital before the...
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:
Closure notice and notice under FA 1998 Sch 18 para 34(2A)
In Spring Capital v HMRC [2016] UKUT 264 (10 June 2016) the UT found that a notice under FA 1998 Sch 18 para 34 (2A) did not have to be issued at the same time as a closure notice.
HMRC had denied the company’s claims for the carry forward of losses under ICTA 1988 s 343 and for relief under the intangible fixed asset rules in respect of the purchase and amortisation of goodwill. It had sought to do so in closure notices in respect of enquiries opened into Spring Capital’s company tax returns for 2007 and 2008. HMRC now accepted that the closure notice issued in June 2010 in respect of the 2008 period might not be valid because the notice of enquiry for that period had not been delivered to Spring Capital before the...
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:
