HMRC May Not Open Enquiry into Voluntary Self-Assessment Return
The First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) has held in Patel v HMRC  UKFTT 185 (5 April 2018) that a voluntarily submitted self-assessment return does not qualify as a return under section 8(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (‘TMA’). Consequently, HMRC cannot open an enquiry into a voluntary return.
The appellants had completed paper tax returns as they had been unsuccessful in registering for online self-assessment. The returns were voluntary, meaning HMRC had not given the appellants notice under section 8(1) TMA requiring the delivery of such returns. Following amendments made by the appellants to the tax return so as to reduce tax liabilities, HMRC sent them notices of enquiry under section 9A TMA.
The FTT held that, on the wording of section 8 TMA, ‘a return under section 8’ plainly meant a return which the taxpayer had been ‘required by a notice given to him by an officer of the Board to make and deliver to the officer’. The words ‘may be required by a notice given to him’ confers a discretion on HMRC whether or not to issue a notice; for example, tax liabilities can be collected without such notice under the PAYE system. However, the fact that HMRC did not issue a notice did not mean a voluntary return became one under section 8 TMA. This conclusion could not be changed by applying the doctrine of purposive construction, as the words used by Parliament as well as its expressed intention were ‘entirely clear’. However, it was open to HMRC, on receipt of a voluntary return and within prescribed time limits, to issue a notice under section 8 TMA requiring the taxpayer to make a return (and effectively resubmit the voluntary return).
This article appears in the JHA April 2018 Tax Newsletter, which also features:
- German Ministry of Finance Guidance on Anti-Treaty Shopping Rule
- Slovak Emission Allowances Tax Breaches EU Law
The DBKAG & K (CJEU) decision: an opportunity for investment funds?
On 17 June 2021, the European Court decided the joint cases K (C-58/20) and DBKAG (C-59/20) regarding whether the supply of certain services constituted the “management of special investment funds”, benefiting from the VAT exemption enshrined in Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
Raising the bar: UK Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for HMRC to issue Follower Notices
On 2 July 2021, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in R (on the application of Haworth) v HMRC  UKSC 25, finding unanimously in favour of the taxpayer and upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the follower notice issued to him.
The Danish Supreme Court decides the Fidelity case
The Fidelity case concerned claims brough by three undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) for the repayment of Danish withholding tax on dividends received from companies resident in Denmark between 2000 and 2009. The Supreme Court rejected the claims on the grounds that the Fidelity UCITS did not fulfil the conditions for the exemption provided by Danish law.
A yellow card for footballers and their agents……let’s bring in another match official
There has been long running tension between HMRC and the way that footballers and their agents are remunerated. As the Professional Footballers’ Association wade into the debate, Helen McGhee discusses the problems arising from agents’ fees and image rights.