Lindsay Hackett v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Judge | Mr Justice Trower,Judge Herrington |
Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 0212 (TCC) |
Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
Subject Matter | Tax,6 July 2020 |
Date | 06 July 2020 |
Published date | 06 July 2020 |
[2020] UKUT 0212 (TCC)
Appeal number:UT/2017/0040
VALUE ADDED TAX - procedure - personal liability notice - FA 2007, Sch 24,
para 19 - application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -
appellant's application for a stay - whether HMRC's decision to proceed by way of
civil penalty instead of a criminal prosecution an abuse of process - whether
standard of proof should be the criminal standard - application to admit into
evidence a prior tribunal decision
UPPER TRIBUNAL
TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
LINDSAY HACKETT
Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
Mr Justice Trower
Judge Timothy Herrington
Hearing conducted remotely by video conference deemed to be held in London
on 8 June 2020
John M Burton QC and Peter Woodall, Counsel, of the Public Defender Service,
for the Appellant
Jonathan Kinnear QC and Howard Watkinson, Counsel, instructed by the
General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the
Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
2
DECISION
Introduction
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) (Judge
5
Roger Berner) released on 23 November 2016. By that decision (the “Decision”) the
FTT made four case management decisions as follows:
(1) Not to stay the proceedings of the appeal of the appellant (“Mr Hackett”)
against the decision of the respondents (“HMRC”) to give Mr Hackett a
personal liability notice under paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 to the Finance Act
10
2007 ("FA 2007") in respect of a deliberate inaccuracy penalty imposed on a
company of which Mr Hackett was the sole director. The FTT rejected Mr
Hackett’s contention that HMRC’s decision to proceed against Mr Hackett in
this way rather than prosecuting him in a criminal court was an abuse of the
FTT’s process.
15
(2) Not to stay the proceedings of Mr Hackett’s appeal until he had obtained a
representation order from the Legal Aid Agency.
(3) That the appropriate standard of proof in the appeal proceedings was the
civil and not the criminal standard.
(4) That it would be an abuse of process for Mr Hackett to dispute in the
20
present appeal facts and issues determined by the FTT in Intekx Limited v
HMRC [2014] UKFTT 277 (TC) (“Intekx 2014”). Accordingly, the FTT
directed that the FTT’s decision in that appeal should be admitted as evidence in
the proceedings relating to Mr Hackett’s appeal.
2. On 17 March 2017 the Upper Tribunal (Judge Herrington) granted Mr Hackett
25
permission to appeal against all but the first of those decisions. On 6 June 2017,
following an oral hearing, Judge Herrington also granted Mr Hackett permission to
appeal against the first of those decisions. The appeal against the second of those
decisions is no longer pursued because Mr Hackett has now, after a lengthy delay,
been granted legal aid in order to pursue his appeal in the FTT and this appeal.
30
Background
3. Mr Hackett’s underlying appeal to the FTT concerns the decision of HMRC to
notify Mr Hackett on 17 March 2015 of a personal liability notice in the sum of
£12,833,984.49 under Paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 to FA 2007. Mr Hackett was, at
all material times, the sole director of Intekx Limited (“Intekx”). Also on 17 March
35
2015, HMRC notified Intekx of a deliberate inaccuracy penalty assessment in the sum
of £12,833,984.49 under section 97 of and Schedule 24 to FA 2007. HMRC contend
that there were deliberate, and in some cases deliberate and concealed, inaccuracies in
Intekx’s VAT returns in respect of the VAT periods 07/09 to 07/13 inclusive, on the
basis of which it was notified of the penalty assessment, and that these inaccuracies
40
were wholly attributable to Mr Hackett as the sole director of the company. HMRC
To continue reading
Request your trial