Need Help with Your Tax Affairs? Choose Your Advisers Carefully

26th May 2023 By

Many people who have little understanding of the tax system sensibly seek help from those with greater expertise. However, a case that exposed an apparent loophole in HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC’s) systems showed how important it is to choose your advisers carefully.

A taxpayer contacted a company that he hoped would assist him in obtaining tax rebates. The company was alleged to have purported to act as his agent in causing self-assessment tax returns to be filed online, apparently on his behalf. The returns included claims for Enterprise Investment Relief (EIR) and, without any checks having been performed, tax repayments totalling almost £25,000 were made. The money was not paid to the taxpayer but to nominees identified in the returns.

After HMRC made inquiries, the taxpayer accepted without demur that he had not made any investments that would qualify for EIR. On the basis that he was deemed to have authorised the company to act on his behalf, HMRC raised tax assessments against him in the full amount of the repayments.

In upholding his appeal against those bills, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) did not accept that the actions of the company could be viewed as merely careless. On the available evidence, it appeared that a fraud had been perpetrated. The taxpayer was not a tax expert and, in seeking professional advice and placing his trust in the company, he had acted reasonably and diligently.

He had not expressly or impliedly authorised the company to act on his behalf and, until he was put on the alert by HMRC, he was wholly unaware that the returns had been filed. He had no opportunity to check their accuracy and there was no knowledge or connivance on his part.

The FTT noted that, although a number of other taxpayers were said to have found themselves in a similar position, the circumstances of the case must be rare. They had, however, served to expose what appeared to be an unfortunate loophole in HMRC’s systems that was open to abuse.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...