LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
We successfully annulled a bankruptcy order against our client after HMRC failed to properly serve notice of a key hearing. Mr. Gaster proved this procedural error denied him the chance to present evidence of his ability to pay. The court’s judgment emphasized due process under Rule 10.23 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, exposing flaws in HMRC’s conduct and evidence on the adjournment notice.
In Purkiss v Kennedy, the High Court rejected a liquidator’s attempt to recover unpaid PAYE and NICs from Ethos Solutions Ltd’s failed tax avoidance scheme. The court found no fraudulent intent to evade HMRC under Insolvency Act 1986, Section 423. This case highlights HMRC’s challenges in tax recovery via insolvency law and the need to prove intent.
HMRC have been using Horizon Data to raise tax assessments and tax penalties against innocent sub-postmasters. In one such case only after a six year battle when HMRC faced paying costs did they decide to withdraw their tax demands. Even now they refuse to recognise their misconduct should be punished by them paying indemnity costs and have threatened the sub-postmaster victim with a costs order simply for daring to ask for his full costs.
A HMRC Security Notice is a formal notice issued by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to an individual or business requiring them to provide security for certain future tax liabilities. It is a tool used by HMRC where they believe there is a risk of tax loss.
In the case of Robert Don Hunter Dougan v HMRC [2022] TC8471, the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) ruled the taxpayer had not deliberately intended to cause a loss…
For privilege to apply, there must be a lawyer (i.e. a solicitor or barrister) in the communication for legal advice privilege to apply. Legal advice privilege does NOT extend to other professionals such as accountants. Therefore, in disputes with HMRC for example, (potentially incriminating) communications with an accountant can be disclosed and are not privileged.
HMRC uses complex expert evidence from KPMG in VAT and MTIC fraud cases to challenge appellants. Without your own expert response, this evidence may go uncontested, risking your case. Early and expert legal support is vital to protect your interests and effectively counter HMRC’s claims. Contact Lexlaw Solicitors for professional advice and representation.
The Court of Appeal has clarified the ‘Kittel’ test in VAT fraud cases, ruling that the key question is whether a trader should have known their transactions were connected to fraud, rather than whether it was merely likely. HMRC bears the burden of proof to show the trader’s knowledge. This decision helps genuine traders defend against denied input tax claims, but full, robust responses to HMRC’s fraud indicators remain essential. Contact Lexlaw for expert VAT litigation advice and representation.
The Brayfal Tax Appeal Decision highlights the significance of a three-person VAT tribunal in complex high-value fraud cases. Unlike a two-member tribunal with a judge, where the judge’s opinion can be overruled by the other member, a three-person panel ensures balanced decision-making. Lexlaw advocates for future VAT tribunal hearings to be heard by two chairmen and one judge to improve fairness and expertise. Contact Lexlaw to discuss the implications of this decision and get expert VAT litigation support.