A striking factor of the litigation between BPP and HMRC which culminated in the Supreme Court judgment in BPP Holdings v HMRC [2017] UKSC 55 (reported in Tax Journal 4 August 2017) was HMRC’s argument rejected at all stages of proceedings that as a public body it should somehow be treated more leniently when it comes to procedural compliance. That HMRC maintained this argument before the Supreme Court notwithstanding the observations made by the Senior President of Tribunals in the Court of Appeal was particularly surprising. It is a central tenet of justice that parties to litigation should be aware of and understand their opponent’s cases.
As a public authority ...
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:
A striking factor of the litigation between BPP and HMRC which culminated in the Supreme Court judgment in BPP Holdings v HMRC [2017] UKSC 55 (reported in Tax Journal 4 August 2017) was HMRC’s argument rejected at all stages of proceedings that as a public body it should somehow be treated more leniently when it comes to procedural compliance. That HMRC maintained this argument before the Supreme Court notwithstanding the observations made by the Senior President of Tribunals in the Court of Appeal was particularly surprising. It is a central tenet of justice that parties to litigation should be aware of and understand their opponent’s cases.
As a public authority ...
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: