Hotelconnect Limited (In liquidation) v HMRC
Joseph successfully appeared for the taxpayers as sole counsel in a highly contentious five day VAT hearing which involved dealing with substantial witness evidence and a barrage of attempted last minute case amendments by HMRC.
HMRC were roundly defeated on all grounds.
Joseph recently represented Hotelconnect in the FTT resisting HMRC’s attempt to refer this case and four others to the European Court of Justice.
Awards Drinks Limited (In liquidation) v HMRC
Joseph and Tristan represented the taxpayer in a case where HMRC were criticised for making the appeal needlessly complicated and confusing. Permission to appeal was granted on application to the upper tribunal where Judge Richards held:
I will say only that, contrary to what I had thought when refusing permission to appeal on the papers, Mr Howard has satisfied me that it is arguable that there is a “missing step” in the FTT’s reasoning. If, as the Applicant alleges, it effected in-bond transactions that caused it to lose possession and control of the goods while they were located in France, then it is arguable that, even though it had rejected as untrue the Applicant’s account of who its customers were and how they paid, the FTT needed to go on explain how the Applicant came to make subsequent supplies of those goods in the UK. Moreover, if, as the Applicant alleges, it lost possession and/or control of the goods while they were outside the UK, it is arguable that, to the extent those goods were the subject of taxable supplies in the UK, those supplies must have been effected by persons other than the Applicant (so that the Applicant cannot have been liable for VAT on those supplies).
Crest Nicholson and Ors v HMRC
Joseph successfully distinguished Crest’s case from the position on Vardy Properties  UKFTT 564 (TC), a different SDLT sub-sale relief scheme that failed due to incorrect implementation. SDLT relief was denied for other reasons.
Alway Sheet Metal Ltd, Praze Consultants Ltd, JC McCahill Ltd v Revenue and Customs
Counsel acted for the taxpayers in this key case on the deductibility of contributions to remuneration type trusts, which established that such contributions were not potential emoluments restricted by section 43 FA 1989 and that the deductibility of such contributions made by a company was a question of fact best established by the evidence of those in control of the company at the time of the contribution.
Montshiwa v Revenue & Customs
Joseph successfully represented the taxpayer, where the tribunal quashed the tax determinations despite years of HMRC refusing to do so in correspondence.
A key case on the law of special relief, causing HMRC to change its published guidance and accept that the numerical disparity between the amount of a determination and the tax actually found to be due was a matter bearing on whether the enforcement of the determination was unconscionable:
- 109. We think that once a taxpayer has identified that the amount sought by HMRC is numerically excessive, it is then incumbent on HMRC to consider whether that excess in association with other factors (such as those identified in SACM 12240) is unreasonable. The reasonableness or otherwise of that excess is a function, therefore, of the interplay of the excess with these other factors. Where the excess is very large in absolute and relative terms the impact of the other factors will need to be considerable if it is to displace that excess as the determining factor. Where the excess is numerically smaller, the other factors will carry more weight in determining reasonableness.
Global Foods Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs
Joseph and Tristan successfully represented Global Foods and established that the taxpayer did not need to be registered in another member state to secure an input tax deduction for a self-supply (see para 50). This is an important case which shows HMRC have no privileged position when interpreting VAT notices and guidance.
Flix Innovations Ltd v Revenue & Customs
A key case on the strict interpretation of the EIS code. Counsel argued that a purposive interpretation and the de-minimis principle of construction should be applied to save an issue of shares made after a reorganisation of share capital meant the ordinary shares were in effectively preferred to a tiny and economically insignificant class of deferred shares. The Tribunals held that the legislation was closely articulated, and could not be construed helpfully to the taxpayer.
W&R Buxton Homes Ltd and W&R Buxton Contracting Ltd v Ors.
Joseph successfully obtained rectification in the context of incorrectly implemented tax planning arrangements, avoiding a large and unanticipated tax charge.
This case is unreported please contact CCTC for more information.
Dr Samad Samadian v HMRC
Joseph appeared in the Tribunal as sole counsel for the Appellant taxpayer in an important test case on the tax deductibility of travelling expenses for private medical consultants, which is estimated to affect over 70,000 taxpayers and may have even wider application to all self-employed persons who carry out part of their business from home.