header-logo header-logo

Parallel proceedings

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

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll