Mr Paul Harrison,Mr Lee Solway & Harrison Solway Logistics Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 06956
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Richard THOMAS |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKFTT 0072 (TC) |
| Respondent | The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | Mr Paul Harrison,Mr Lee Solway & Harrison Solway Logistics Ltd |
| Reference | TC 06956 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
1
[2019] UKFTT 0072 (TC)
TC06956
Appeal number:TC/2017/06318/06319/06320
5
INCOME TAX & NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – Benefits from
availability of cars and use of fuel cards – whether Apollo Fuels applies because
fair bargain – payments for private use – whether discovery assessments on
directors met conditions in s 29 TMA – effect of discovery assessment where
10
enquiry still in train – application of s 32 TMA – whether NICs decision on Class
1A correct – whether penalties under Schedule 24 FA 2007 apply – careless or
deliberate or neither? – whether penalties under regulation 81 SSCR 2001 apply –
income tax appeals allowed – NICs appeals allowed in part.
15
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
20
(1) PAUL HARRISON
(2) LEE SOLWAY
(3) HARRISON SOLWAY LOGISTICS LTD
Appellants
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER
MAJESTY’S
Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE RICHARD THOMAS
ANN CHRISTIAN
25
Sitting in public at Alexandra House, Manchester on 15 November 2018
Stephen Outhwaite of Outhwaite Associates Ltd for the Appellants
Richard Jones, Litigator, HM Revenue & Customs, for the Respondents
30
2
DECISION
1. This hearing was of appeals by Mr Paul Harrison (“Mr Harrison”) and Mr Lee
Solway (“Mr Solway”) (together “the directors”) against:
(1) Discovery assessments on each of them for the tax years 2010-11, 2011-12,
5
2012-13 and 2013-14.
(2) Amendments to their tax returns made in closure notices following an
enquiry into each of their returns for 2012-13.
(3) Penalties under Schedule 24 Finance Act (“FA”) 2007 for inaccuracies in
their returns for all four tax years.
10
2. The hearing was also of appeals by Harrison Solway Logistics Ltd (“HSL”)
against decisions made by HMRC on HSL in relation to Class 1A National Insurance
Contributions (“NICs”) and penalties for its failure to deliver to HMRC returns of
benefits provided by it to Mr Harrison and Mr Solway for the purposes of Class 1A
NICs.
15
3. In addition a number of determinations (including penalty determinations) and
decisions made by HMRC on HSL in respect of PAYE and of primary and secondary
Class 1 NICs had been appealed by it and were included in the matters listed for hearing.
We were informed at the start of the hearing that these matters, which covered tax years
from 2007-08 to 2011-12 and involved amounts of over £1,700,000, had been agreed
20
in principle in a very much smaller aggregate amount, but that no s 54 Taxes
Management Act 1970 (“TMA”) agreement had been made. We therefore have, in our
decision, varied the determinations etc concerned in principle in accordance with the
parties’ agreement as to figures without specifying what the figures are for each tax etc
for each tax year.
25
Evidence and Facts
4. We had witness statements from Mr Martin Bland and Mr Stephen Forsythe,
officers of HMRC who had succeeded Ms Claire Lucas and Mr John Carruthers, the
officers who opened the enquiries and checks. Those officers gave evidence and were
cross-examined by Mr Outhwaite.
30
5. There were no witnesses listed for the appellants. We checked at the start of the
hearing if Mr Outhwaite proposed to call either Mr Harrison or Mr Solway or both,
given that one at least of them was present in the hearing room. Mr Outhwaite said he
was not so proposing, even though we warned him that since much of the appellants’
case relied on there being oral arrangements and agreements not reflected in the written
35
evidence we would be left making what inferences we could from the documents we
had.
6. From the documents supplied in our bundle which were exhibits to the witness
statements of Mr Bland and Mr Forsythe we set out, as findings of fact, a chronology
of events relevant to the dispute that remains outstanding.
40
To continue reading
Request your trial