There is more to Inverclyde than meets the eye

29 January 2020
Author: JHA

In Inverclyde Property Renovation LLP and another v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 0408 (TCC), the First-tier Tribunal upheld an appeal against closure notices that were issued to two LLPs. The FTT found that HMRC should have enquired into the appellant LLPs’ partnership returns under paragraph 24 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998 regarding corporation tax self-assessment and not s12AC of TMA 1970 for partnerships.

The LLPs stated that they did not rely on any lacuna in the legislation, but it was a straightforward case of HMRC having followed the wrong procedural steps. Moreover, HMRC could still be able to remedy the situation through their powers to make discovery assessments, subject to statutory limits.

If HMRC wanted to challenge the relevant return of any LLP members, they should have opened an enquiry into those members’ own returns under s9A, TMA.  The FTT reiterated that a taxpayer will not be prevented from challenging the procedural course adopted by HMRC only because they have accepted incorrectly issued notices of enquiry and the fact that HMRC has used a procedural course for a considerable period does not make it correct.

It is HMRC’s common practice not to open s9A TMA 1970 enquires into the returns of individual partners of LLPs in analogous scenarios. This decision may therefore have a wider impact on other similar enquires.

HMRC has appealed the FTT decision and the UT hearing is on 27 April 2020.

Return to List of Articles by UK Lawyers on Tax Disputes, Tax Litigation, HMRC Tax Appeal Return to Listings
Left Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London

Our Insights

Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

Armour Veterinary Group v HMRC – Warning for Partnership Personnel Changes?

In this decision, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) dismissed an appeal against discovery assessments which disallowed amortisation relief claimed by the Appellant company for three types of goodwill acquired from a partnership. The decision examined the applicability of each of the circumstances set out in s882 CTA 2009 before concluding none of them had been satisfied. It also provided guidance on the meaning of carrying on a business pursuant to s884 CTA 2009. In rejecting the appeal, the FTT reached a number of key conclusions:

  1. partners can potentially rebut the presumption that individual partners do not own the goodwill of the business (in whole or part) by expressly recording the division in a partnership agreement;
  2. whether a partner is an equity or salaried partner has no bearing on whether they can be treated as carrying on the business for the purpose of s884;
  3. when determining whether and when a partner carries on a business, the FTT will consider, inter alia, (1) if they are in a partnership as per the definition in s1 of the Partnership Act 1890 and (2) their role in the day-to-day running of the practice;
  4. a fundamental aspect of the self-assessment regime is that taxpayers must ensure that they retain adequate records (backed up by an external valuation as relevant in the case of a goodwill transfer) sufficient to support the information provided in their returns, including evidence to support claims made for relief.

Read More
Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

One minute with Helen McGhee

https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/one-minute-with-helen-mcghee-Helen McGhee provides an overview of the “hot topics” currently impacting the world of tax.

Read More

Right Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London