LITIGATION

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.

Oliver Marre (5 Stone Buildings) considers two ways in which decisions of the FTT can influence the results of later cases.

Anastasia Nourescu and David Pickstone (Stewarts) consider the pitfalls of HMRC’s newly published ADR guidance and how taxpayers and advisers should approach ADR going forward.

Craig Kirkham-Wilson (Simmons & Simmons) reviews a recent decision of the Upper Tribunal on staleness and Supreme Court precedent.

Whilst taking professional advice will usually mean a taxpayer has taken reasonable care, not taking advice does not necessarily mean a taxpayer has been careless, write Adam Craggs and Constantine Christofi (RPC).

Paul Farey (AECOM) considers the impact of a Court of Appeal decision in the long-running Urenco capital allowances case.

Two recent cases provide a reminder of the extent to which taxation outcomes can depend on other areas of law and demonstrate that HMRC will not be limited to ‘pure’ tax law arguments on appeal, write Dominic Stuttaford and Aiden Hepworth (Norton Rose Fulbright).