Follower and accelerated payments notices

This Overview explores the concepts of follower notices, accelerated payment notices (APNs) and partner payment notices (PPNs), which were introduced by Finance Act 2014 (FA 2014) to help combat tax avoidance.

For the key points to note about follower notices and APNs/PPNs, see: Quick guide to follower notices and APNs—checklist.

What are follower notices?

Provided four conditions are met, HMRC can give follower notices to taxpayers who have used an avoidance scheme that has been shown to fail in another person's litigation (ie defeated in an earlier final judicial ruling). A follower notice is designed to counteract the tax advantage by incentivising the recipient of the follower notice to concede to HMRC's view and to take any necessary corrective action, such as amending a return or a claim, or to drop its appeal in accordance with the earlier final judicial ruling and therefore save HMRC the time and expense of having to litigate the same issue again. Failure to take corrective action within the required time gives rise to a penalty. For more information, see Practice Note: Follower notices.

A follower

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents