header-logo header-logo

30 June 2017
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

nlj_7752_vaines

Peter Vaines tackles penalties, prison & other principal residences

  • Failure to submit a zero return.
  • Doing time: an unexpected or unusual event?
  • New twist on principal private residence.

The case of Kaczmarczyk v HMRC TC 5744 has some hair-raising implications. Mr Kaczmarczyk was issued with a tax return but he did not send it back because he had no taxable income or gains for the year. However, HMRC still imposed a penalty of £3,500 for failing to submit a zero return. Their grounds derived from s 8 of TMA 1970, which says that the taxpayer ‘may be required by a notice given to him by an officer of the Board to make and deliver to the officer a return containing such information as may reasonably be required in pursuance of the notice’.

The tribunal held that upon receipt by a person of a notice under s 8, the recipient has an obligation to file a tax return for the year—and failure to do so gives rise to a penalty under Sch 55 of the Finance

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll