This podcast discusses a First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision concerning an appeal by Gary Quillan against a tax assessment related to an overdrawn director's loan from his company, BOH Investments Limited, which entered voluntary winding up. The core issue was whether the outstanding loan balance was either legally released or written off by the liquidator during the 2018-19 tax year, triggering an income tax charge under Section 415 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. The Tribunal heard arguments from Mr. Quillan, representing himself, and a litigator from HM Revenue and Customs. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the loan was neither formally released nor definitively written off by the liquidator, and consequently allowed Mr. Quillan's appeal, concluding there was no basis for the tax assessment.

Gary Quillan v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 421 (TC)

This podcast concerns a dispute concerning the application of VAT exemptions for sports-related services. Specifically, it examines whether a non-profit golf club in the UK should be exempt from VAT on "green fees" paid by non-members to use its course. The court clarifies that the VAT exemption for services closely linked to sport, provided by non-profit organizations, applies regardless of whether the user is a member or not. Furthermore, the judgment states that Member States cannot restrict this exemption based on whether the service generates "additional income" or potentially distorts competition with commercial entities. Ultimately, the court ruled that the green fees paid by non-members are not excluded from the VAT exemption under the relevant EU directives.

Case C-495/12 Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club (19 December 2013)

This podcast concerns a First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision addressing an appeal by Accelerate Corporation Limited against a discovery assessment issued by HMRC concerning corporation tax for the accounting period ending September 30, 2016. The core issues were whether HMRC's assessment was made within the allowed timeframe and whether Accelerate could claim loss relief for bad debts from unpaid invoices to Intelligent Organics Limited (IOL) in an earlier period than HMRC permitted. The tribunal upheld HMRC's assessment, finding it was validly issued due to carelessness by Accelerate in not including the IOL revenue in its accounts and that loss relief for the bad debt was correctly recognized in a later accounting period, as Accelerate failed to prove the debt became irrecoverable earlier. The tribunal also confirmed that company accounts must follow GAAP and be prepared on an accruals basis, dismissing Accelerate's arguments.

Accelerate Corporation Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 419 (TC)

This First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision concerns an appeal by Tony John Shepherd against a VAT assessment issued by HMRC. The core dispute was whether Mr. Shepherd, operating a taxi company, acted as a principal, liable for VAT on the full fare, or as an agent for his drivers, liable only on his commission. The tribunal allowed Mr. Shepherd's appeal, finding that HMRC failed to adequately demonstrate that their assessment, based on the premise that he was a principal, was made to the best of their judgment. The judgment highlights HMRC's lack of clear evidence regarding the process used to determine Mr. Shepherd's principal status. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the assessment was not valid.

Tony John Shepherd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 423 (TC)

This podcast concerns a First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) decision addressing whether a taxpayer, Mr. Christian Candy, can claim a refund for overpaid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 of the Finance Act 2003. The overpayment occurred due to the substantial performance of a property contract that was not ultimately completed, a situation typically covered by section 44(9) of the same Act. However, Mr. Candy was too late to amend his land transaction return under section 44(9). The tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Candy, determining that paragraph 34 acts as a "back-stop" for SDLT relief independent of section 44(9), allowing a claim even when the standard amendment window has closed, provided the conditions of paragraph 34 are met.

Christian Peter Candy v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 416 (TC)

This podcast discusses a First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision concerning an appeal by David Ricketts against penalties for the late filing of his self-assessment tax return for the year ending April 2022. The tribunal considered whether Mr. Ricketts was required to file, if the penalties were correctly issued, and if he had a reasonable excuse for the delay. HMRC demonstrated that Mr. Ricketts was notified electronically to file and that the penalties were applied according to regulations. Mr. Ricketts argued he believed a return was unnecessary and cited his limited understanding of UK tax law and the system's complexity. The tribunal ultimately dismissed his appeal, concluding that a lack of familiarity with the tax system and reliance on his own assumptions did not constitute a reasonable excuse.

David Ricketts v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 422 (TC)

This podcast concerns a First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber appeal by WG Recruitment Ltd against VAT default surcharges imposed by HMRC. The tribunal's decision, reached via remote video hearing, allowed the appeal. The core issue was HMRC's failure to provide sufficient evidence of serving the required surcharge liability notices on the appellant for the VAT periods in question. Despite HMRC's arguments regarding deemed service under the Interpretation Act, the tribunal found their evidence lacking and refused an adjournment to allow HMRC to obtain further proof, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating proper notification.

WG Recruitment Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 420 (TC)

This podcast discusses a First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision concerning a dispute between South Crescent Trustees Limited and the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regarding income tax. The core issue revolves around the respondents' delayed filing of their Statement of Case and the appellant's subsequent application to bar them from further proceedings. The respondents sought an extension citing unavailability during the festive period after unsuccessful Alternative Dispute Resolution, a request the appellant opposed. Ultimately, the Tribunal refused the appellant's barring application and, with reluctance, granted the respondents an extension, emphasizing that barring a party is a drastic measure and that the delay, while not condoned, did not warrant such action. The Tribunal prioritized progressing the appeal despite the procedural missteps.

South Crescent Trustees Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 417 (TC)

This podcast discusses a First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) decision from April 7, 2025, concerns a strike-out application by His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) against an appeal by Media & Communications Limited (MCL). The appeal initially challenged late payment penalties (LPPs) issued due to the non-payment of accelerated payment notices. HMRC argued that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider MCL's argument of legitimate expectation, which stemmed from a settlement that MCL believed included the LPPs. Citing prior Upper Tribunal cases, the First-Tier Tribunal agreed with HMRC, concluding it does not have the authority to consider such public law arguments in LPP appeals and thus struck out the proceedings.

Media & Communications Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 418 (TC)

This podcast discusses a First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) decision concerning applications by several companies, part of the Thomson Reuters Group, for directions requiring HMRC to issue closure notices regarding their 2018 corporation tax enquiries related to transfer pricing of intra-group services with a Swiss entity. The companies argued that HMRC had unreasonable grounds for delaying closure, especially as similar enquiries for other years were already closed. HMRC contended that the closure notices should be withheld pending the Supreme Court's decision on a judicial review brought by some of the applicants concerning the Diverted Profits Tax and its consistency with an Advance Pricing Agreement. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the applications, finding that HMRC could issue broad closure notices and that any necessary adjustments could be made later depending on the Supreme Court's outcome, thus protecting the taxpayers from unduly protracted enquiries.

Refinitiv Limited & Ors v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 415 (TC)

This podcast discusses an Upper Tribunal decision documenting an appeal by Navin Joshi against a First-tier Tribunal ruling regarding the commencement date of his UK State pension entitlement. The core issue revolved around the late payment of voluntary National Insurance Contributions made by Mr. Joshi to meet the minimum qualifying years. Mr. Joshi argued his entitlement should begin when he reached pensionable age, but HMRC determined it started later, a decision partially adjusted to an earlier date through their discretionary powers. The tribunals ultimately upheld HMRC's revised commencement date, clarifying that late contributions are generally credited from the payment date, with limited discretion for earlier dates based on specific circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the statutory framework for State pension entitlement based on contribution history and payment timing.

Navin Joshi v HMRC [2025] UKUT 126 (TCC)

Az Európai Unió új szabályozása egyértelmű üzenetet küld: a kényszermunkával készült termékeknek nincs helye az európai piacon. A cél nemcsak az uniós piac védelme, hanem az is, hogy a szabályozás világszerte pozitív irányba mozdítsa el az ellátási láncok átláthatóságát.
 
Srankó Zsolt, a KPMG partnere a Jazzy Rádióban beszélt arról, hogyan érinti az uniós szintű tilalom a nemzetközi vállalatokat és hazai importőröket, mit vár el az EU a beszállítói láncok feltérképezésében, és hogyan lehet a megfelelést dokumentálni. A szabályozás 2027-től lesz alkalmazandó, de a vállalatoknak már most érdemes stratégiát alkotniuk.
 
Mi számít kényszermunkának? Milyen szankciókra lehet számítani, és mit tehetnek a cégek, hogy megfeleljenek az új előírásoknak? Tudd meg a rádióbeszélgetésből!

Kényszermunkával előállított termékek uniós piacon belüli tilalma

В программе "Время делать" - представитель компании ProSpainConsulting Алия с рассказом об изменениях в законе об иностранцах, отмене "Золотых виз",  других возможностях для получения ВНЖ в Испании. Беседу вела Мария Уибберли.

ВРЕМЯ ДЕЛАТЬ - PROSPAINCONSULTING Март 2025

Explore PTET elections in M&amp;A transactions, compliance complexities, and SALT cap implications, with insights from Deloitte experts.

Understanding PTET in M&A transactions

This podcast concerns Mr. Surat Singh Sangha's appeal against an information notice issued by HMRC under Schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008, which sought various documents and information to check his tax position. The judge partially set aside and partially varied the notice, finding that some requested items were not reasonably required for the tax years under inquiry or were not shown to be within Mr. Sangha's possession or power. Key issues included the burden of proof for showing information is reasonably required, whether documents were statutory records, and the specificity of requests. Ultimately, the notice was varied to focus on Mr. Sangha's tax position for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 and to clarify the information sought regarding bank accounts and income sources.

Surat Singh Sangha v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00564 (TC)

This podcast discusses a First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber hearing regarding an application for a late appeal against a Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) discovery assessment. The tribunal reviewed the legal requirements for late appeals and the principles for exercising discretion in such cases, specifically referencing guidance from higher tribunals. The facts presented outlined the timeline of the O'Donnells' property purchase, the HMRC assessment, and the subsequent communication, or lack thereof, between the O'Donnells, their representatives, and HMRC. Ultimately, the tribunal denied the late appeal application, finding that although the O'Donnells genuinely believed their agents were handling the matter, their failure to respond to HMRC's direct correspondence was not a reasonable excuse for the significant delay.

C O'Donnell & Anor v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00587 (TC)

This podcast discusses a First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision, dated June 26, 2024, outlines a procedural issue in a case between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Elite Management Consultancy Limited (in administration), along with a second respondent, Adam Bale. The case involved HMRC's application for a DOTAS notification regarding an "enhanced umbrella scheme." However, the central focus of the tribunal's decision was HMRC's failure to serve an authorities bundle by the specified deadline, which resulted in an automatic strike out of their application under the tribunal's rules. The tribunal determined that the late submission triggered a mandatory strike out provision, leaving no room for discretion based on the overriding objective of the rules. The decision notes that HMRC intends to apply for reinstatement within the allowed timeframe.

HMRC v Elite Management Consultancy Limited (in administration) and Adam Bale [2024] UKFTT 00567 (TC)

This podcast addresses the appeals of Good Choice 2016 Limited and its director, Mrs. Fang Bo Guo, against various tax decisions by HMRC. The core issue revolves around HMRC's assessment of unpaid VAT and corporation tax, along with associated penalties and a personal liability notice issued to Mrs. Guo. HMRC's actions stemmed from a finding of suppressed purchases and inferred suppressed sales, relying in part on evidence of an undeclared supplier account and a second merchant acquirer account linked to the business address. The tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the assessments and penalties were properly issued and that Mrs. Guo was liable for the penalties.

Good Choice 2016 Limited and Mrs Fang Bo Guo v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00544 (TC)

This podcast concerns the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Morgan vs. The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regarding Capital Gains Tax. The core dispute revolved around whether a constructive trust transferred the beneficial interest in a property (Plot 3) to their company, D&R Property Development Ltd, in the 2015-2016 tax year, or if the taxable disposal occurred upon the legal transfer in 2016-2017. The tribunal ultimately found that a constructive trust did arise in the earlier tax year, transferring beneficial ownership due to the parties' express common intention and the company's detrimental reliance by incurring development costs. However, the tribunal also determined that a hypothetical HMRC officer could not have been reasonably expected to be aware of this constructive trust disposal by the relevant deadline for the 2015-2016 tax year. Consequently, the appeals against the 2016-2017 closure notices were allowed, while the appeals against the 2015-2016 protective assessments were dismissed.

Mr Roger William Morgan and Mrs Susan Joan Morgan v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00565 (TC)

Kövesd a KPMG Hungary folyamatosan frissülő csatornáját és maradj naprakész legyen szó jelenről vagy jövőről, gazdasági vagy társadalmi témákról. #KPMGVoice
______________
A KPMG könyvvizsgálati, adóügyi és tanácsadási szolgáltatásokat nyújtó független szakmai szolgáltatók globális szervezete. 144 országban és tartományban működünk, világszerte 236 000 fő dolgozik tagtársaságainknál. Mindegyik KPMG-tagtársaság jogilag különálló gazdálkodó egység, és ilyenként határozza meg magát. A KPMG International Limited („KPMG International”) angol “private English company limited by guarantee” társasági formában működik. A KPMG International és kapcsolt gazdálkodó egységei ügyfelek részére nem nyújtanak szolgáltatásokat.

A magyarországi KPMG-tagtársaságoknál több mint 1400 fő dolgozik – a KPMG Hungária Kft. könyvvizsgálati szolgáltatásokat, a KPMG Tanácsadó Kft. tanácsadási szolgáltatásokat, a KPMG Legal Tóásó Ügyvédi Iroda jogi szolgáltatásokat kínál magyar és multinacionális társaságoknak, kormányzati szerveknek és külföldi befektetőknek, míg a KPMG Global Services Hungary Kft. (KGSH) megfeleléssel kapcsolatos szolgáltatásokat nyújt multinacionális vállalatcsoportoknak több mint 35 országban.

New tracks tagged #tax