In HMRC v Tower MCashback LLP1 (and cross-appeal) (SC – 11 May) where the substantive issue is discussed here the Supreme Court unanimously upheld HMRC’s interpretation of the effect of a closure notice and disapproved Henderson J’s decision in the Ch D.
Lord Walker specifically approved the leading judgment by Moses LJ in the CA and held that ‘in issuing a closure notice an officer is performing an important public function in which fairness to the taxpayer must be matched by a proper regard for the public interest in the recovery of the full amount of tax payable. In a case in which it is clear that only a single specific point is in issue that point should be identified in the closure notice. But if as in the present case the facts are complicated...
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:
In HMRC v Tower MCashback LLP1 (and cross-appeal) (SC – 11 May) where the substantive issue is discussed here the Supreme Court unanimously upheld HMRC’s interpretation of the effect of a closure notice and disapproved Henderson J’s decision in the Ch D.
Lord Walker specifically approved the leading judgment by Moses LJ in the CA and held that ‘in issuing a closure notice an officer is performing an important public function in which fairness to the taxpayer must be matched by a proper regard for the public interest in the recovery of the full amount of tax payable. In a case in which it is clear that only a single specific point is in issue that point should be identified in the closure notice. But if as in the present case the facts are complicated...
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=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")