SME Tax News

Should we allow a computer to issue notices on behalf of HMRC's officers? What decisions should computers make? How can we better scrutinise proposed legislation? What safeguards are required?

In Dr Colin Goudie and Dr Amelia Sheldon v Revenue Scotland [2018] FTSTC 3, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) for Scotland found that the Additional Dwelling Supplement would not be refunded where one of the occupants of the new property had never lived in the old property.

In KS MacMillan and G Boardman v HMRC [2019] TC 07408, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) ordered the HMRC to pay 50% of the taxpayer's costs. HMRC had denied relief based up an incorrect argument. This became the subject of a complex appeal. It turned out that if the correct argument had been considered in the first place it would have saved both sides' costs.

In Andrew John Edward Clark v Revenue Scotland [2018] FTSTC 4, the First Tier Tribunal for Scotland found that the Additional Dwelling Supplement (ADS) was not repayable when a second property was merged into one.

In Ruth Anne Munro v Revenue Scotland [2019] FTSTC 6, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) for Scotland found that the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) is payable when the return is submitted. If a tax return is submitted early, then the tax must also be paid early. If 'early tax' is paid late you receive a penalty.

In 'Automated Decisions: Technical Note' published in October 2019, HMRC proposes new legislation for inclusion in the Finance Act 2020. The proposals mean that anything that can currently be done by an officer may instead be completed by HMRC through the use of a computer or other electronic means, whether automatically or not.

In HMRC v David Goldsmith [2019] UT 0325, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that HMRC may issue a notice to file a tax return in order to collect a PAYE debt. The taxpayer's appeal against late filing penalties was rejected on the basics: he had failed to appeal the amount of the penalty.

In HM Revenue & Customs v SSE Generation Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 105, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal that disputed items of expenditure qualified for capital allowances but did not allow extended allowances on a procedural point.