header-logo header-logo

15 September 2011 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

One size does not fit all

Peter Vaines reports on the inevitable failure of HMRC’s revised litigation strategy

In June 2007 HMRC launched their litigation settlement strategy which may be summarised crudely as “no deals”. The idea was that if HMRC felt that they had a good case, they would pursue it to a conclusion through the courts. However, if they did not feel it was sufficiently strong they would back down. I am sure this must have happened in some cases.

Wider purpose

There was a wider purpose which was to prevent any advantage being obtained by those entering into a tax scheme and seeking some undeserved benefit by compromising the matter (ie getting something for their trouble) or at the very least delaying the payment of tax.

The point is entirely understandable—but you do not need a “strategy” for dealing with those cases; you just say no. As far as the delay is concerned, HMRC are always going on about interest being merely commercial restitution for the delay in payment (and they get

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll