Station Road, Sidcup

How can we help?

Please fill in this form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please enter your name
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter a question
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

HMRC Slammed for Unreasonable Behaviour As Costs Awarded to Taxpayer

The increasing aggressiveness of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in dealing with taxpayers was recently given short shrift by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), which criticised HMRC's high-handedness and ordered them to make a payment to the taxpayer concerned.

The tax battle involved a builder who made a number of errors in completing his VAT returns. The errors led to three VAT penalties totalling less than £800 and a VAT assessment of £69 being issued. However, the penalty notices were found to be invalid because the original notices were issued and then withdrawn. HMRC failed to reissue them.

The FTT found that the builder's errors were careless and not deliberate, but more significantly, HMRC's change in approach to the severity of the errors led it to describe their way of handling the matter as 'hopelessly muddled' and containing a 'spurious justification' for their change of strategy. In all, the FTT found that there were 'a number of disturbing features about the way the case has been conducted by the respondent (HMRC)'.

Commentary on the case has focused on the poor quality of HMRC's performance and arguments in making penalty assessments and on the decreasing quality of HMRC's case management generally, with their emphasis being on trying to browbeat taxpayers into submission even when their case is lacking merit.

The FTT can only make a costs award in specific circumstances, one of which is where either party has acted unreasonably.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.