The Personal Representative of Michael Wood (Deceased) v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morgan,Judge Herrington |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKUT 0346 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Tax,25 July 2016 |
| Date | 25 July 2016 |
| Published date | 21 February 2017 |
[2016] UKUT 0346 (TCC)
Appeal number:UT/2015/0108
INCOME TAX– discovery assessments made against taxpayer relying on
extended time limits on grounds of deliberate conduct - death of taxpayer -
whether assessments should be discharged on grounds personal
representative cannot receive a fair trial-ss 29 and 36 TMA 1970 –Art 6
Human Rights Convention-appeal dismissed
UPPER TRIBUNAL
TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MICHAEL WOOD (Deceased)
Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
Mr Justice Morgan
Judge Timothy Herrington
Sitting in public at The Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL on 20
June 2016
Tarlochan Lall, Counsel, instructed by Male and Wagland Solicitors,
for the Appellant
David Yates, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM
Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2016
2
DECISION
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) (Judge 5 Kempster) released on 12 June 2015 (the “Decision”).
2. By the Decision the FTT determined the following preliminary issue:
“Whether (and, if so, to what extent) the assessments against the late Michael Wood
made under the extended time limits set out in section 36(1A) (a) Taxes Management
Act 1970 should be set aside by reason of his death.” 10
In determining the preliminary issue in favour of the Respondents (“HMRC”) the FTT
decided that requiring the Appellant, Mrs Greer Wood (as Mr Wood’s personal
representative) to contest the disputed assessments would not be a breach of her
human rights conferred by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) because HMRC’s making of the disputed assessments under the extended 15 time limits conferred by s 36 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”) did not
constitute a taxpayer being “charged with a criminal offence”. The FTT also decided,
having considered the overriding objective of the FTT under Rule 2 of The Tribunal
Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, to deal with cases fairly
and justly, that it would not be fair and just to “set aside” the disputed assessments at 20 the current state of the proceedings. The FTT concluded that until the exact nature of
the basis of the assessments was clear, the FTT could not say whether the Appellant
would be unduly adversely prejudiced by being required to continue the proceedings.
3. Permission to appeal against the findings on the Article 6 issue was granted by
Judge Kempster on 18 August 2015. There was no appeal against the findings on the 25 Rule 2 issue.
The facts
4. The relevant facts, which are set out in detail at [2] to [9] of the Decision, can be
summarised as follows.
5. In June 2010, the late Michael Wood admitted to under-declarations of income 30 for the tax years 2002-03 to 2007-08 totalling £743,424 and made a payment of tax of
£352,983. This admission was made with a view to taking advantage of an HMRC
“disclosure opportunity” for medical professionals called the “Tax Health Plan” – this
encouraged voluntary disclosure of unpaid taxes in return for a fixed tax geared
penalty of 10% of the amount of tax under-declared. 35
6. HMRC were not satisfied that the disclosure by Mr Wood came within the
terms of the Tax Health Plan and opened a Code of Practice 9 investigation into his
affairs. On 18 March 2011, a meeting took place between HMRC, Michael Wood and
his advisers. Michael Wood agreed to provide a disclosure report (the “Disclosure
Report”) into his affairs for the previous 20 years. The disclosure report was due to be 40
To continue reading
Request your trial