Our Insights

SHORT CASE REPORT FTT DECISION – ‘MTIC’ FRAUD – KITTEL TEST PTGI International Carrier Service Limited v. HMRC [2022] UKFTT 20 (TC)

1. A so-called “MTIC case”, in which HMRC alleged knowledge or means of knowledge of fraud.  The taxpayer, PTGI, denied those states of knowledge.  After a relatively lengthy trial, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of PTGI.
2. The decision represents a good reminder that HMRC’s “MTIC” decision-making mould is not a “one size fits all”, unbeatable formula at the Tribunal.  The Tribunal will robustly analyse HMRC’s (usually) inference-led allegations.

HMRC consultation on the OECD mandatory disclosure rules

HMRC has published a consultation on draft regulations to implement the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) rules on mandatory disclosure of certain avoidance arrangements. Helen McGhee and Nahuel Acevedo-Peña explain the background to the new rules and their implications.

Post-Prudential: Decision released by the FTT

On 8 December 2021, judgment in the Post Prudential Group Litigation was handed down by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”). These were appeals and applications for closure by approximately 200 taxpayers, who had made a variety of claims seeking repayment of unlawful DV tax imposed on dividends received from foreign portfolio holdings. The FTT considered the validity of these various statutory claims following decisions in test cases in the CFC & Dividend GLO, namely Claimants in Class 8 of the CFC and Dividend Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2019] EWHC 338 (Ch), [2019] 1 WLR 5097 (“Class 8”) and Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKSC 39; [2019] AC 929 (“Prudential SC”).

S&S Consulting Services (UK) Ltd v HMRC: Can a company be re-registered for VAT pending appeal?

On 26 November 2021, the High Court of Justice issued its judgment in S&S Consulting Services (UK) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2021] EWHC 3174. The case concerned the issue of availability of injunctive relief in the context of VAT deregistration appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT"). S&S also made an application for judicial review of HMRC’s decision to deregister it for VAT, which at the time of the hearing, had not yet been considered on the papers.

HMRC cancelled S&S’s VAT registration because it concluded that the company had been principally or solely registered to abuse the VAT system by facilitating VAT fraud. S&S denied any wrongdoing and claimed that it might become insolvent before the hearing of its appeal as a result of the deregistration.

It was also common ground that although S&S had lodged an appeal to the FTT, the FTT had no power to require HMRC to re-register S&S by way of interim relief pending the outcome of the appeal. S&S made an application to the High Court for relief.

Held: Application rejected.

VAT De-registration: the CJEU decision in the Promexor case

On 18 November 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) delivered its judgment in Case C-385/20 (Promexor Trade SRL v Directia Generala a Finantelor Publice Cluj – Administratia Judeteana a Finantelor Publice Bihor). Promexor is a Romanian company whose VAT number was revoked by the local tax authorities following a period of six months in which its VAT returns did not record any transactions subject to VAT. Under Romanian legislation, a company whose VAT number has been revoked could re-register and retroactively deduct input VAT for the period when it was not registered. However, in this case, Promexor was prevented from doing so because its director was also a shareholder of a company that was going through insolvency proceedings.

FICkle fortunes

Helen McGhee discusses the use of corporate vehicles in family wealth and succession planning in the UK

Will it be a safe landing?

Helen McGhee and Tom O’Reilly consider the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Fisher case and how it is likely to impact the rules on transfer of assets abroad.

Even Closer? A Global Minimum Tax on Corporations December Update

This article is an update from a previous article published on 20 August 2021.

On 8 October 2021, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework published a statement where 136 jurisdictions^[1] agreed to a global minimum tax on corporations (“GMCT”). The previous article noted that much will depend on the outcome of future political negotiations. After some negotiations, the new statement represents an improvement from the previous one, incorporating more countries.

Joint and Several Liability Notices

Schedule 13 of the Finance Act 2020 (the “FA 2020”) introduced measures that allow HMRC to give joint and several liability notices (“JSLN”) to company directors, shadow directors and members of LLPs in certain circumstances. Although the FA 2020 came into force on 22 July 2020, HMRC only recently published a guidance note about these new powers.

JSLNs provide HMRC with a power to recover from individuals taxes that might otherwise not be paid by a corporate taxpayer.

Lloyd v Google LLC: Supreme Court closes floodgates on opt-out data protection claims

On 10 November 2021, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, finding unanimously in favour of Google and rejecting the claim brought by Mr Lloyd on behalf of himself and over 4 million other iPhone users in respect of alleged breaches of data protection law.

The judgment will come as a significant relief to data controllers of all sizes who, following the Court of Appeal’s decision, faced the prospect of large-scale data claims. The Supreme Court’s discussion of the representative claim procedure will also be of interest to anyone involved in multi-party litigation.