The recent Upper Tribunal decision in L Hackett v HMRC is an important judgment for both tax and criminal litigators alike. The judgment provides useful guidance on why pursuing an individual taxpayer via civil penalties for deliberate errors in VAT returns, rather than instituting criminal proceedings for tax evasion, does not amount to an abuse of the tribunal process. It clarifies that the burden of proof in tax tribunal cases will be judged to the civil (as opposed to the criminal) standard, even when the underlying allegation amounts to a ‘serious fraud’. It has practical application to other cases where there are parallel tax tribunal and criminal proceedings.
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:
The recent Upper Tribunal decision in L Hackett v HMRC is an important judgment for both tax and criminal litigators alike. The judgment provides useful guidance on why pursuing an individual taxpayer via civil penalties for deliberate errors in VAT returns, rather than instituting criminal proceedings for tax evasion, does not amount to an abuse of the tribunal process. It clarifies that the burden of proof in tax tribunal cases will be judged to the civil (as opposed to the criminal) standard, even when the underlying allegation amounts to a ‘serious fraud’. It has practical application to other cases where there are parallel tax tribunal and criminal proceedings.
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:
.jpg?sfvrsn=7d6b0377_1)
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")