Weekly case highlights ― 25 October 2021

Produced by Tolley

The following Owner-Managed Businesses guidance note Produced by Tolley provides comprehensive and up to date tax information covering:

  • Weekly case highlights ― 25 October 2021
  • Income tax
  • Michael Anderson v HMRC
  • Employment tax
  • Jayamth Kunjur v HMRC
  • Tribunal procedure
  • Europcar Group UK Ltd and another v HMRC
  • Polo Farm Sports Club v HMRC
  • Tax administration
  • Stuart A Cormack v HMRC

Weekly case highlights ― 25 October 2021

These are our brief notes and thoughts on cases published in the last week or so which caught our eye and are likely to be of particular interest to tax practitioners. Full case reports and commentary on most of these cases will be included within our normal reference sources in the coming weeks.

Income tax

Michael Anderson v HMRC

This is yet another appeal against a penalty for failure to notify liability to the high-income child benefit charge. It is worth a brief note because the taxpayer was successful on the basis that it was accepted that he had a reasonable excuse.

HMRC had sent him ‘nudge’ letters reminding him of the liability, but he had not received them. Often in tribunals, taxpayers claim non-receipt of letters but do not put forward any evidence to support their argument. Proving a negative, that you have not received something, is difficult, but here the taxpayer provided evidence, including a photograph of previous delivery problems. The post office had frequently confused his property with a similar sounding address a mile away. This was enough to tip the balance in his favour. He acted promptly when he did ultimately receive a letter from HMRC about the liability.

As ever, evidence rather than assertion is the key to success in tribunal hearings.

Employment tax

Jayamth Kunjur v HMRC

This is a comparatively rare example of an employee being able to obtain tax relief for at least some of the cost of accommodation and is therefore important. Travel and subsistence is always a difficult area of tax law.

The taxpayer was an experienced dental surgeon living with his family in Southampton. He wanted to become a maxillofacial surgeon and this involved taking a full-time training position in London for four years. Initially, he tried to commute from Southampton to London but that was untenable as it left him exhausted and unable to treat his patients properly. He, therefore, rented a property

Popular documents