HMRC Tax Disputes Taking Over Three Years To Resolve
Companies are facing greater inconvenience and expense as the duration of HMRC investigations continues to grow. The average time large businesses can now expect inquiries to last is 39 months. The 2016-17 typical time was 34 months, up from 31 months in the previous financial year.
There are a number of possible explanations for this increase. Many businesses and private practice lawyers point to the more aggressive approach being taken by HMRC, including an unwillingness to settle cases and a real lack of resources to manage concurrent large-scale investigations. Some also suggest that having resolved simpler cases and dealt with the “low hanging fruit”, HMRC has now turned its attention to more complex multi-jurisdictional business entities, which necessarily entail longer investigations.
Whatever the cause, the consequences for large businesses remain the same: disruption to financial planning and budgeting and increases in cost, time and resources directed towards cooperating with HMRC. There is also greater risk of potential reputational damage caused by such enquiries, which unless carefully handled, can become public and have a knock-on effect on share price for listed companies.
HMRC’s Large Business Directorate leads investigations into the tax affairs of the UK’s biggest businesses. Its investigations enabled it to secure more than £8bn in additional tax revenue in 2017. It states that “at any one time, we will be actively investigating more than half of the UK’s 2,100 largest businesses.”
More companies are looking to specialist investigations and dispute resolution firms that have strong relations with HMRC to ensure such matters are managed as efficiently as possible and with minimum effect on their business.
JHA’s investigations team is made up of specialist and highly experienced solicitors and barristers, forensic accountants, former regulators and data scientists, uniquely sitting under one roof. JHA is also a leading firm in contentious tax, having achieved Band One rankings in both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for the fifth consecutive year.
Data in this article was originally published by the Financial Times.
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.