Tinkler
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKFTT 170 (TC) |
| Date | 09 March 2016 |
| Court | First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
Judge Barbara Mosedale
R Thomas QC, instructed by One Legal, appeared for the appellant
M Jones, counsel instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, appeared for the respondents
Income tax – Preliminary issue – Whether notice of enquiry validly given – Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA 1970”), s. 9A – Notice not given to taxpayer's usual or last known place of residence – Enquiry known to agent – Sufficient notice to taxpayer – TMA 1970, s. 115(2) – Taxpayer in any event estopped from asserting invalidity of enquiry – Decided in HMRC's favour
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that HMRC had properly opened an enquiry into a taxpayer's tax return. Although the FTT found that HMRC had not posted a letter advising of their intention to open an enquiry to the taxpayer, the taxpayer's agent knew of the enquiry and this had been communicated to the taxpayer or his PA and therefore HMRC had fulfilled the requirements of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA 1970”), s. 9A. The FTT also found that the taxpayer would have been estopped from denying that the enquiry was validly opened.
The appellant (Mr Tinkler) appealed against a closure notice issued by HMRC which amended (or purported to amend) his 2003–04 tax return. This decision determined the preliminary issue of whether the enquiry had been properly opened, because if it had not then the closure notice would have been invalid.
HMRC's case was that they gave notice to open a valid enquiry as required by TMA 1970, s. 9A because:
• in July 2005 they posted a letter (“the Letter”) to Mr Tinkler, at the address held on their self assessment computer system, advising him that they intended to enquire into his 2003–04 tax return; and/or
• they posted a copy of the Letter to Mr Tinkler's agent, BDO Stoy Hayward (“BDO”) and therefore Mr Tinkler had actual or constructive knowledge of the opening of the enquiry (because BDO or Mr Tinkler's PA received notice of it).
Finally HMRC argued that if they were wrong about this, Mr Tinkler was estopped from denying that the enquiry was validly opened.
Mr Tinkler's case was that:
1) the Letter was never posted because he never received it and HMRC could not provide a clean copy of the Letter (although they did have a copy of the copy letter sent to BDO);
2) although TMA 1970, s. 115(2) did not rule out other methods of giving a notice of enquiry, to do so HMRC would have had to show that he knew before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tinkler v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
...purportedly opened an enquiry into Mr Tinkler's 2003–04 tax return under TMA 1970, s. 9A. But as had been found by the FTT in Tinker [2016] TC 04960, the notice of enquiry had not been sent to Mr Tinkler's usual or last known place of residence or his place of business or employment pursuan......
-
Jagger
...[2012] BTC 1,711 Clean Car Co Ltd [1991] BVC 568 Skorobogatovas [2017] TC 05781 Biazussi [2017] TC 06171 Hesketh [2018] TC 06266 Tinkler [2016] TC 04960 Carr [2018] TC 06258 Perrin v R & C Commrs [2018] BTC 513 Sudall [2017] TC 05868 Donaldson v R & C Commrs [2016] BTC 28 Rowland v R & C Co......
-
Pitcher
...given (and I note, and agree with, the extensive analysis of the relevant provisions set out in the Tribunal's decision in Tinkler TAX[2016] TC 04960, which leads to the same conclusion).[55] I also agree with Mr Chacko that the Tribunal has no role in deciding whether the circumstances for......
-
Hooton (t/a KDS Refrigeration Ltd)
...indicate that the APNs were posted to the Company. HMRC has no record of any post having been returned as not delivered. [57] Tinkler [2016] TC 04960 contains an analysis regarding service. Paragraphs 65 and 67 state: [65] It is obvious the case cannot be authority for such a proposition as......