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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll