The powers available to HMRC to request information or documents from a third party (a Third Party Notice) where it is reasonably required by HMRC for checking the tax position of a taxpayer are generally well known. What is not so well known is the limited opportunities available to a third party who might wish to challenge the terms or scope of a Third Party Notice.

Appointment of receivers in respect of a group entity takes “control” of that entity outside the group for tax purposes, but does this decision have more far reaching consequences?

The First Tier of the Tax Tribunal heard appeals against closure notices issued by HMRC denying claims for group relief by a group of companies, including a company over whose assets a fixed charge receiver (FCR) had been appointed (the Borrower).

On 24 March, HMRC published a summary of responses to the December consultation on Company Distributions, together with details of the Government's position on the issues raised. The December consultation was covered in my 3 February blog.

In The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Amran Munir and others [2015], the directors and secretary of a company were sentenced by the High Court to a term of imprisonment for contempt of court.

Summary

In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC^[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.

Background

The Tribunal has upheld HMRC's decision that a company (Danesmoor Ltd) should not be entitled to recover input VAT incurred on professional fees for a corporate restructuring. HMRC had not allowed the recovery of the input VAT on the grounds that the services were not provided to the company. The appellant argued that the advisors had been engaged and paid for by the company directly in connection with the restructuring and as such the input VAT should be recoverable.

On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

In the recent case of HMRC v Munir & Others[1], HMRC successfully applied to the Court for committal of three company officers for contempt of court where an order appointing a provisional liquidator was knowingly breached.

 Background

Key Point

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ("HMRC") were not immune from the requirement to give an undertaking for damages suffered where a provisional liquidator was appointed based on HMRC allegations of fraud and tax evasion.

The Facts

The published judgment in Abbey Forwarding[1] will not make for comfortable reading for HMRC. Having instigated the winding up of a profitable business, which led to the dismissal of 23 employees, and accused  innocent directors of fraud, HMRC then withdrew all assessments made against the company and attempted to avoid undertakings it had given to the court when seeking the original winding up order.