Soapbox Communications Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKFTT 148 (TC) |
| Court | First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2021] UKFTT 148 (TC)
Judge Heather Gething
Validity of notice of enquiry sent to Appellant c/o occupant of the registered office, and whether the subsequent closure notice was valid, where occupant also 64-8 agent. Notice of enquiry valid. Appealed dismissed.
[1] The Appellant challenges the validity of a notice of enquiry into two amended returns and therefore the validity of the closure notice but not the content of the closure notice. The Appellant contends that the notice of enquiry was not served on the Appellant in accordance with section 115(1) Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”). The notice was addressed to the Appellant company c/o Cardens (the Appellant's 64-8 agent) at the registered office of the Appellant which was also the office and registered office of Cardens. The Appellant relies on Tinkler v R & C Commrs [2019] BTC 22 (“Tinkler”) where the Court of Appeal confirmed that a notice of enquiry was not duly served where the notice had not been sent to the current address of the Appellant and where the notice was sent to Mr Tinkler's 64-8 agent.
[2] The Notice of enquiry was validly served and the appeal is dismissed.
[3] I heard evidence of Mr Schwartz a director and the company secretary of the Appellant and I find the following facts which were not in dispute:
[4] The Appellant provides services from premises in London and Bath.
[5] Prior to 28 July 2010, the Appellant's registered office was notified to Companies House as “c/o Cardens Accountants LLP, 73 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2BB”.
[6] On 8 January 2015, Companies House was notified of a change of the Appellant's registered office to “The Old Casino, 28 Fourth Avenue, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2PJ”. I will refer to this address below as “The Old Casino”.
[7] HMRC received an automatic notification from Companies House of a change in registered office.
[8] HMRC's COTAX computer recorded the change of address. and included “C/O Cardens” in the record.
[9] On 20 March 2015, Cardens notified Companies House of a change of their own registered office from Church Road to the Old Casino.
[10] In consequence of the above, Cardens' address was the registered office of the Appellant throughout the enquiry. Cardens was also Appellant's 64-8 agent throughout the enquiry.
[11] The Appellant has never had an entitlement to occupy the Old Casino or right to enter the Old Casino to take post addressed to the Appellant and delivered to the Old Casino. The Appellant had an agreement with Cardens to receive post on the Appellant's behalf and forward it to the Appellant or at the Appellant's direction.
[12] On 25 October 2018, a notice of enquiry into the Appellant's amended returns for the periods ended 31 May 2016 and 2017, was issued by HMRC and addressed as follows:
SOAPBOX COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
c/o Cardens Accountants LLP
The Old Casino
28 Forth Avenue
Hove
East Sussex
BN3 2PJ
[13] A letter was also sent to Cardens, as the Appellants registered 64-8 agent, attaching a copy of the notice of enquiry that had been addressed to their client in the manner mentioned at [12] above.
[14] The notice of enquiry addressed to The Appellant as described at [12] was received by Cardens. The copy in the bundle indicated it was date stamped by Cardens as having been received on 29 October 2018.
[15] Cardens called Mr Schwartz to inform him that a notice of enquiry had been received. As the issue related to R&D relief, Mr Schwartz directed that the notice of enquiry be sent to Shencoh Associates Limited (“Shencoh”) who are specialists in R&D.
[16] Shencoh communicated with HMRC throughout the course of the enquiry leading to the issue of the closure notice on 11 December 2019, and they represent the Appellant in this appeal.
[17] There is no dispute about whether the notice would have been served on time if it had been validly served.
[18] Para 24 of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 1998 deals with the ability of HMRC to enquire into a return. Para 24(1) requires HMRC to give notice [my emphasis] of its intention to do so within the time allowed, and Para 24(5) states that a return that has been subject to one enquiry may not be subject of another. It follows, that for a closure notice to be valid there must be a valid enquiry into a return. If there was no valid enquiry, the amended assessments in the closure notices would be invalid and the Appellants self-assessment would be reinstated. No further enquiry into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial