header-logo header-logo

25 March 2010 / Jamie Potter , Charles Brasted
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Parallel proceedings

Tax challenges: why so taxing? ask Charles Brasted & Jamie Potter

The long-understood need for parallel proceedings arises from the limited statutory jurisdiction of the tribunal(s) empowered to hear appeals from the decisions of HMRC. The jurisdiction of the relatively new First Tier Tribunal (the FTT) is constrained in the same manner as its predecessor bodies (in the case of tax, the VAT and Duties Tribunal and the Special Commissioners for Income Tax). Thus, for example, s 83 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA) sets out an (almost) exhaustive list of the matters appealable to the FTT in relation to VAT.

A difficulty, however, arises in circumstances where a taxpayer wishes to complain about, not just the application of the law by HMRC in relation to his tax matters, but also HMRC’s conduct in reaching its decision—that is, the taxpayer wishes to argue that irrespective of (or more usually, despite) the application of the law, HMRC’s decision should be struck down as being unreasonable, irrational or contrary to the taxpayer’s legitimate expectation

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll