Derek Hankinson v HM Revenue & Customs focused on whether HMRC used a section section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 correctly when it investigated the taxpayer’s Self Assessment return for the 1998-99 tax year – six years after it was filed.

In 2005 HMRC assessed Hankinson’s tax return for 1998-99 and concluded he owed £30m in income tax and capital gains tax for the year because he was still a resident in the UK for tax purposes, despite having moved to the Netherlands.

Hankinson lost appeals against HMRC’s assessment of his tax liabilities in the first-tier and upper-tier tribunals.

In the Court of Appeal Hankinson challenged HMRC’s use of section 29 that was used to investigate his tax return for 1998-99.

HMRC usually has one year after a Self Assessment tax return is delivered to challenge and investigate it.

Under section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (at the time of the case), however, HMRC can investigate tax returns after the one-year window by sending a discovery assessment letter if one of two conditions apply. Firstly, the full and accurate facts were not available to HMRC officers due to incomplete disclosure, negligence or fraudulent behaviour by the taxpayer or agents; secondly the HMRC officer completing an enquiry could not have reasonably been expected to have been aware of the loss of tax.

In a judgment published in December last year Lord Justice Lewison concluded that HMRC’s use of section 29 was valid.

The THP raised over £10 million through over 1500 disclosures, with an individual payment of over £1 million by a doctor and over £300,000 by a dentist.

HMRC has now announced that it has begun 500 enquiries and 6 criminal investigations since the THP closed.

The dispute between HMRC and Hospital Consultants concerning what constitutes their business base for mileage purposes continues to run. A Tribunal case is due to be heard this summer, although it is understood that it involves a geriatrician, rather than the more representative Hospital Consultant undertaking a combination of NHS and private practice work at regular locations. So watch this space because it isn’t only these high profile cases that employers need to be aware of there is also the real danger that employees and Directors are claiming travel & subsistence costs incorrectly as they have not identified a persons permanent/temporary workplace. We are here to help you with this exercise so call us today on 0800 9179176 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0800 9179176 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

employer compliance reviews

PAYE/NIC investigations

Employment status reviews

tax investigations

you name it and they are heading your way and don’t think it won’t happen to you – it will, so why not take advantage of the special deal that EICG is running this month on PAYE/NIC healthchecks and Construction Industry reviews, call us today on 0800 917 9176 to see how we can help you avoid being a victim

Interestingly, it would appear that the new “Cross Tax” enquiry framework, involving PAYE/NIC, Corporation Tax, VAT etc is being shelved as it is slowing up the enquiry process so Inspectors will be reverting to just working their particular area

HMRC you need to wake up and use some common sense – meetings can speed up the whole process – you are investigating someone or some entity, so they shouldn’t have to pick up the cost – you should be prepared to travel and guess what if there is a settlement to be made the money will be in the coffers quicker and the officers involved will be free to move onto another case – simples!

HMRC plans to seize an extra £4bn in 2010/11 through more aggressive tax investigation work and tougher powers. To achieve such a high yield, HMRC will need to widen the scope of its enquiry work to include marginal cases. This increases the risk innocent businesses are caught up in a massive fishing exercise

Tax investigations can be hugely costly to taxpayers in respect of management time, stress and advisory fees, while much of the tax HMRC claws in through investigations is not tax that has been deliberately evaded, in many cases it is the result of HMRC reinterpreting tax law and this brings in the well known scenario of my pockets are deeper than yours – otherwise known as if an individual or business can’t afford to challenge HMRC’s decision through the tribunals and court system, then HMRC wins.

So you have been warned, take specialist advice before it happens to you

Unrepresented tax payers have been relatively enthusiastic to use the system, probably on the basis of what have they got to lose – this made up 81% of those using the system. There are however strong distinctions to be drawn between automatic penalty cases where approximately half were cancelled compared with those that are far more substantiative. Even the latter category showed that about 25% were either cancelled or varied – so there is a definite moral here – don’t reject the internal review system out of hand it can be a useful process if dealt with correctly you just need to make sure the person dealing with your case understands the process. So, if you need advice call us today on 0800 917 9176

• Increases in employees national insurance contributions, but not employers NIC
• Increase in the rate of Capital Gains Tax to probably 40%
• VAT rate to increase from 17.5% to 20%
• Increase in the level of PAYE/NIC compliance checks
• Increase in the personal allowance level to nearer the £10,000 mark
• A crack down on tax evasion, albeit HMRC cannot seemingly tell the difference between this and tax avoidance – the latter being perfectly legal

The Government has indicated that most of the initial debt reduction will come from spending cuts rather than tax rises but we would recommend that you review all your employer compliance procedures with the help of an employment tax expert as they will be seeking extra revenue from basically whereever it can get it from – so call us today on 0800 917 9176 and see how we can save you money

HMRC compliance visits and tax investigations take on real significance when you focus on HMRC’s mission to maximise tax take, as such its stated litigation settlement strategy (LSS) aims to push for a full settlement or court action if it believes it has a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

Now the issue is always the fact that HMRC have deep pockets when it comes to arguements, you only have to look at some of the employment status cases that have taken 3/5 years to conclude but the cost in terms of money, time and effort expended by HMRC (and delayed cash flow for the government’s coffers – this is most likely the issue) in pursuing these disputes is mounting.

Therefore some in HMRC are considering using a more “common sense” approach – can it be possible?

A new unit would split the dispute resolution unit from the anti avoidance division. The mission of the new unit would be to resolve the disputes more quickly; thus improving cash flow, even if the speedier resolution means a lower tax bill – I can’t see that being popular within HMRC, can you? So stick with the principle of getting things as correct as possible in the first place and if you’re not sure give us a call on 0800 917 9176 as a PAYE/NIC healthcheck could save your company, in more ways than one!