Joseph recently appeared in the Tribunal as sole counsel for the Appellant taxpayer in an important test case on the tax deductability 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.
W&R Buxton Homes Ltd and W&R Buxton Contracting Ltd v Ors. Claim no 8415 of 2012 Companies Court (unrep).
Joseph successfully obtained rectification in the context of incorrectly implemented tax planning arrangements, avoiding a large and unanticipated tax charge.
Flix Innovations Ltd v Revenue & Customs (INCOME TAX : enterprise investment scheme)  UKFTT 558 (TC) (6 November 2015)( UKFTT 558 (TC),  SFTD 173,  STI 213; From First-tier Tribunal (Tax); 68 KB)
Flix Innovations Ltd v Revenue & Customs  UKUT 301 (TCC) (5 July 2016)( BTC 512,  STC 2206,  STI 2636,  UKUT 301 (TCC); From United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber); 0 KB)
A key case on the strict interpretation of the EIS code. Counsel unsuccessfully 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.
Counsel successfully argued that the appellant did not need to be registered in another member state to secure a input tax deduction for a self supply (see para 50).
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.
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.
© Fountain Court Tax Chambers 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.