refused and that there was no right to remain in the UK beyond 10 May 2010.
It was held by the EAT that the tribunal should have enquired into matters more thoroughly. They should have been alerted to a problem by virtue of the 19 January 2010 letter, and also because the claimant had failed to produce documentation under an order by another employment judge. As a result the tribunal erred in awarding compensation based on earnings with the church over the period he would not have been permitted to work. The original award of compensation was therefore overturned and substituted by an award of loss of earnings up to 10 May 2010.
TAX AVOIDANCE ‘HAT TRICK’ DELIVERS GOLD
22 August 2012
HMRC has won three key court decisions against tax avoidance schemes during July. These schemes, if unchallenged would have diverted £200 million from the UK Exchequer.
HMRC’s Director General of Business Tax, Jim Harra, said:
“These wins in the courts are a victory for the vast majority of taxpayers who do not try to dodge their taxes. They send a clear message to tax avoiders - HMRC will challenge tax avoidance relentlessly and we will beat you. “We have now had three major court successes in avoidance cases in the last month alone and I hope this sends a very clear message: These schemes don’t come cheap, you carry a serious risk that you’ll end up paying the tax and interest on top of a set-up charge which can run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. So you have to ask yourself whether it’s really worth it.
“These were complex cases which show HMRC’s experts doing what they do best, delivering great results for the UK.”
Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury David Gauke said:
“The Government is committed to tackling aggressive tax avoidance schemes and HMRC will pursue their users through the courts where necessary. These three HMRC wins are very welcome, demonstrating that if an avoidance scheme promises results that seem too good to be true, they probably are.”
DETAILS
1. Schofield (Court of Appeal, 11 July)
Concerned capital gains tax on a £10 million gain realised in 2003/2004. The wider tax protected is £90 million. The taxpayer sold his business, making a profit of about £10 million. He used a tax avoidance scheme to create an artificial loss so that he wouldn't have to pay tax on the profit he made when he sold his business. He spent a lot of money on a scheme which, according to the Court of Appeal, did not work. The taxpayer had paid out over £200,000 for this failed scheme, not including the costs relating to the litigation.
2. Sloane Robinson Investment Services (First Tier Tribunal, 16 July)
The directors of Sloane Robinson were paid significant bonuses. They considered a number of tax avoidance schemes, modifying the one they had chosen when the legislation was changed to counter that type of scheme. The First Tier Tribunal ruled the modified scheme
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 58 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker