LITIGATION

It all depends on the context... Will Scott (Norton Rose Fulbright) assesses the impact of a Supreme Court decision on the availability of capital allowances for increasingly novel technologies.

Advisers may face potential claims long after providing the initial advice, explain Anastasia Nourescu and Cécile Perrault (Stewarts).

Judge on HMRC’s shoulder? A recent Court of Appeal ruling demonstrates that judicial review remains a vital and effective tool in defending taxpayers’ public law rights, write Adam Craggs and Liam McKay (RPC).

Robert Waterson and Liam McKay (RPC) suggest that the recent Mitchell case is indicative of a wider sense of apprehension in HMRC.

Is it true that what you don’t know can’t hurt you? Sophie Rhind (Macfarlanes) examines recent cases considering the level of knowledge sufficient for a finding that a taxpayer’s behaviour is ‘deliberate’.

Sophie Rhind and Victoria Braid (Macfarlanes) examine when the tribunal will exercise its power to direct HMRC to issue a closure notice in light of the recent case of Hitchins.

With the litigation on UK exit charges seemingly set to continue, Ben Elliott (Pump Court Tax Chambers) examines the impact of a recent CJEU decision.

The characterisation test for VAT has received important clarification from the Court of Appeal, writes Michael Thomas KC (Pump Court Tax Chambers).

HMRC appears to view many penalty appeals as a ‘second bite of the cherry’, even where the tribunal has not considered the earlier decision, writes Anastasia Nourescu (Stewarts). 

Can it really be right that the taxability (or not) of a receipt can be determined by the partnership, with the recipient partner having no right to object? David Whiscombe (David Whiscombe LLP) discusses a tribunal decision that considered for the first time the scope of TMA 1970 s 12ABZB.