Market leading insight for tax experts
View online issue

JUDICIAL-REVIEW


Claim for judicial review of an advance payment notice rejected

Mark Whitehouse and Peter Halford (PwC Legal) consider Whipple J’s judgment in R (oao Hely-Hutchinson) v HMRC. This important decision is likely to significantly curtail HMRC’s power to depart from published guidance. 
 
Gideon Sanitt (Macfarlanes) considers the rise in judicial review applications against HMRC, and the difficulty for taxpayers in holding HMRC to account.
 

The High Court has rejected a judicial review application challenging the legality of accelerated payment notices, as well as their compatibility with human rights (Nigel Rowe and others v HMRC [2015] EWHC 2293).

HMRC will be able to depart from its own guidance if it believes that tax avoidance might be involved, as the decision in Samarkand illustrates. Jeanette Zaman and Owen Williams (Slaughter and May) consider the uphill struggle that taxpayers could face to prove they have a substantive legitimate expectation.

Gideon Sanitt (Macfarlanes) considers the decision in Ingenious Media and when HMRC may be excused from its duty of confidentiality.

The taxpayer cuts through a ‘procedural thicket’ to achieve victory in this retirement benefit scheme case, writes Adam Craggs

Pinsent Masons reports

Kevin Smith and Richard Doran look at the effect on taxpayers challenging HMRC by judicial review

James Bullock looks at the activist group's failed attempt to challenge HMRC

EDITOR'S PICKstar
Top