HMRC Publish New Research & Development (R&D) Guide

Research & Development (R&D) remains a highly beneficial area for those companies carrying out qualifying work.  Historically it has been an underused relief with HMRC and Government seeking ways to highlight the availability of the relief.

As part of this on-going initiative, HMRC have published a document on R&D designed to ‘Make R&D easier for small companies’.  It does contain some useful summaries and case studies for those who are unfamiliar with the relief.

As a reminder, R&D tax relief is available to companies that are developing a product through an advance in science or technology by overcoming scientific or technological uncertainty.

For small to medium sized companies (SMEs), the relief takes two forms:

  • Firstly, enhanced R&D tax relief – for every £1 of qualifying costs spent on R&D, the company receives a deduction in calculating their taxable profit for corporation tax purposes of £2.30.
  • Secondly, for loss making companies up to 33% of the qualifying cost can be available as a tax refund.

The Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC) scheme which pays a taxable credit of 11% of qualifying expenditure may also be relevant to SMEs, for example where they are carrying out work for larger companies.

HMRC’s new guide goes through some of the factors to consider in determining whether projects would qualify for R&D relief, but does highlight that the relief is not just for ‘white coat’ scientific research, but also for other “development work in design and engineering that involves overcoming difficult technological problems”.

It also includes case studies on certain areas, such as food, ICT and construction.  The food case study for example notes that, “Creating an innovative chilled food container that provides a substantially longer shelf life than currently available, would […] qualify. The scientific or technological uncertainties to be addressed are in the interactions between the food, gas content and container to keep the food fresh for longer. By contrast, the work in dealing with authorities to comply with extended use-by date regulation would not qualify.”

Eaves and Co has dealt with a number of R&D claims and have a proven track record in completing successful claims and can offer assistance in all aspects of the claim process.  If you would like to discuss how we can help, please get in touch.

Employment Related Securities – HMRC Withdraw Late Filing Penalty

We were recently successful in challenging HMRC penalties for late filing in relation to annual Employment Related Securities (ERS) reporting.  In the case in question, a company had submitted an online ERS return the previous year relating to a one-off share event, being an acquisition of shares by an employee.

Quite reasonably, the company did not appreciate that HMRC expected an ERS return to be submitted the following year, bearing in mind there was no share scheme and no events had taken place.  Without providing the company with a reminder that a return would be due, HMRC proceeded to raise late filing penalties when the return was not submitted.

HMRC argued that a nil return was due for all subsequent years regardless of whether there were any share events.  The manner of the penalty was concerning in that it provided no details of which legislative provisions it was based on, even after the penalty had been appealed.

According to HMRC, annual returns are to be submitted on or before 6th July each year and returns, including nil returns, “must be submitted for any and all schemes that have been registered on the Employment Related Securities online service.”

They argued that, “A return is required even if you have:

  • Had no transactions
  • Have made an appeal/Had an appeal allowed
  • Rely on a third party to submit the return
  • Ceased the scheme by entering a final event date
  • Registered the scheme in error
  • Registered a duplicate scheme
  • Did not receive a reminder
  • Have changed accountant/agent/staff

Once a scheme or arrangement has been registered on the service and remains live, you have a continuing annual obligation to submit an electronic end of year return by the deadline.”

The actual legislation states that a return is required for each tax year falling in the personʼs “reportable event period”.  A personʼs “reportable event period” is defined under s.421JA(3) as:

  • beginning when the first reportable event occurs in relation to which the person is a responsible person, and
  • ending when the person will no longer be a responsible person in relation to reportable events.

Clearly the legislation is somewhat unclear, however there was a strong argument that where no future reportable events were envisaged they would no longer be within a reportable event period.

We were able to get HMRC to withdraw the penalties on the basis that there was no employee share scheme, and therefore no ongoing obligation under the actual legislation to file returns.  One suspects HMRC will not be changing their policy in this regard, but it does highlight the importance of challenging them where they apply policies that go further than the actual law.

J Hicks – Discovery Case Won by Taxpayer

The scope of HMRC’s powers in relation to raising discovery assessments outside of the normal enquiry window has been a contentious issue in recent years and a number of cases seem to have eroded the position of the taxpayer (see our earlier blog post for example).

A recent First-Tier Tribunal case, J Hicks v HMRC, seems to have taken a more reasonable approach and may therefore give hope to taxpayers for a more balanced approach in the future.

The taxpayer in this case took part in a tax avoidance scheme which was marketed by a firm specialising in such schemes.  The scheme in question was marketed at derivatives traders, which the taxpayer was.  Having taken part in the scheme it was reported on his 2008/09 tax return, with the relevant avoidance scheme reference included.  He had losses carried forward, which he claimed on his 2009/10 and 2010/11 returns, which were both filed in late January before the filing deadlines for each year.

HMRC opened a standard enquiry into the 2008/09 return, and this enquiry was ongoing when the later tax returns were filed.  However, HMRC did not open enquiries into 2009/10 or 2010/11.

In March 2015, HMRC issued discovery assessments for 2009/10 and 2010/11, which Mr Hicks appealed.  HMRC argued they could issue an assessment under either TMA 1970, s29(4), that the insufficiency was a result of careless behaviour, or under TMA 1970, s29(5) that a hypothetical officer could not have been aware of the deficiency within the normal time limits.

The tribunal found that a hypothetical officer should have had enough information by the end of the normal window to raise an enquiry, with the Judge noting that, “I do not consider that subsection (5) allows or is intended to allow HMRC to issue assessments which ignore the normal time limits while they spend further time in polishing a justifiable assessment as at the closure of the enquiry window into a knockout case.”

He also points out that these rules should not be seen as giving HMRC “carte blanche […] to omit to open an enquiry—whether intentionally or by omission—and then simply rely on subsection (5) in every case to issue assessments which would otherwise be out of time. The statutory time limits for assessments are a critically important safeguard for the taxpayer, just as the onus of disclosure on the taxpayer, and the duty not to act carelessly or deliberately, are a protection for HMRC where those limits are not met.”

It is interesting to note the Judge acknowledging that taxpayers deserve rights and safeguards from HMRC, particularly in light of HMRC’s continued attempts to obtain ever greater powers.

Looking at the matter of carelessness, the Tribunal found that reliance on the scheme provider for information included in the return was not careless, nor is the use of a tax avoidance scheme automatically careless.  The key point was whether careless behaviour led to the deficiency of tax.  In this case, it was found not to be careless.

The taxpayer’s appeal therefore allowed.

Taxpayer awarded costs over HMRC’s unreasonable conduct

A recent VAT case heard by the First-Tier Tribunal (Gekko & Company Ltd v HMRC (TC06029)) highlighted worrying aspects of HMRC’s handling of the case and even awarded costs against HMRC. The Tribunal clearly felt strongly about the case, with the decision stretching over 29 pages for a case involving an assessment to VAT of £69 and three assessments of penalties of £780, £8.85 and £10.35 respectively.

The decision begins by stating that it , “is a great deal longer than we would ordinarily write in a case involving such small amounts: this is because there are a number of disturbing features about the way the case has been conducted by the respondents (HMRC).”

The case involved a property developer company who HMRC claimed had made errors on their VAT returns, with the biggest one being an omission of £5,200 of output tax (which the Tribunal later found to actually be £4,880).

The penalty notices were found to be invalid because the original assessments had been withdrawn and new ones had not in fact been issued. The tribunal found that, even if they had been valid, the penalty of £780 should have been reduced to nil as the behaviour was careless but the disclosure was unprompted and that the other two penalties should be cancelled as there was no inaccuracy.

In deciding to award costs to the taxpayers, the Tribunal were particularly critical of HMRC. We enclose a passage from this below regarding HMRC’s change of opinion from an unprompted to prompted disclosure:

“We consider, having thought about this long and hard, that there are two possible explanations for this volte face. One is that there was incompetence on a grand scale. The other is that there was a deliberate decision to keep the dispute alive, when on the basis of the reviewing officer’s remarks it would have been discontinued, by seeking to revisit the “prompted” issue. The facts that have caused us not to dismiss this possibility include the minimal information about the change with no explanation and the hopelessly muddled response with its spurious justification that Miss Pearce sent when the appellant spotted the change. Of course we have had no evidence from those involved and do not intend in this decision to make any findings about the matter. But it is something we have to take into account in deciding whether HMRC’s conduct in this case was unreasonable.”

The Tribunal cancelled the VAT and penalties and awarded costs to the taxpayer.

Overall, this case seems to echo our recent experiences with HMRC and shows a worrying trend in decreasing quality of HMRC case handling and emphasis on winning at all costs, regardless of the merits of individual cases.

Offshore Client Notifications – Are you Affected?

We have written previously on this blog about various HMRC offshore disclosure facilities designed to encourage taxpayers to come forward and declare any unreported foreign income or gains.

HMRC continue to acquire new powers in order to pursue taxpayers and one of the latest requires advisors themselves to write to certain clients on their behalf.

These rules apply to financial institutions like banks but also to so-called “specified relevant persons” (SRPs). Accountants and tax advisors are likely to be an SRP if they provided offshore advice or services over and above simple preparation and delivery of tax returns in the year to 30 September 2016 regarding a client’s personal tax affairs.

If the advisors fall within the rules and are not covered by certain exemptions they will be required to send a standard HMRC headed document to these clients (although writing to all clients is also permitted) with a covering letter that includes certain wording which may not be altered (these are the Offshore Client Notifications).

One of the key things to note is that HMRC’s document directs clients to submit their own online disclosure. You may suspect they are thus attempting to bypass the advisors. We could not possibly comment! If you need to send such letters, we recommend highlighting to the client the dangers of doing so!

The wording SRPs must include in their covering letter is as follows:

“From 2016, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is getting an unprecedented amount of information about people’s overseas accounts, structures, trusts, and investments from more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide, thanks to agreements to increase global tax transparency. This gives HMRC unprecedented levels of information to check that, as in most cases, the right tax has been paid.

If you have already declared all of your past and present income or gains to HMRC, including from overseas, you do not need to worry. But if you are in any doubt, HMRC recommends that you read the factsheet attached to help you decide now what to do next.”

If you are concerned about how these rules might affect your firm, or are an individual with unreported overseas income, please get in contact with us as we would be happy to assist.

Elbrook (Cash and Carry) Ltd – Payment of VAT Assessment Would Cause Hardship

Arguments are inevitable between taxpayers and HMRC over interpretations of key phrases in the legislation. These often revolve around penalties, appeals and what constitutes ‘reasonable’. In a recent case, the Revenue lost on the grounds that the taxpayer would have suffered ‘hardship’ if required to pay a VAT assessment before appealing it (as according to VATA 1994, s.84 one of the conditions for appealing is that the tax must be paid).

The taxpayer had won the case at the First-Tier Tribunal, and the Upper Tribunal noted that it could only overturn the finding in that case if they had made an error in law.

The Upper Tribunal noted that the test had to consider not just the ability to pay, but “the capacity to pay without financial hardship”. It was felt the possibility of obtaining new finance should be ignored in the circumstances (which seems to go against standard HMRC practice in cases regarding difficulty paying). It was only if other sources were likely to become available they should be considered. The judge agreed with the First-Tier Tribunal that approaching their bankers would not have been suitable as it could have caused further financial difficulties through the bank becoming concerned.

Overall, the judge agreed with the conclusions of the First-Tier Tribunal, even though the decision could perhaps have been worded better. The case highlights that it can be worth challenging HMRC interpretation. They are Civil Servants, not the judiciary, so there are independent arbiters of the rules!

Please contact us if you have any concerns about HMRC practices. We have extensive experience in such matters. Often HMRC are right, but not always. They will only be kept to high standards by rigorous, independent review. This is in the best interests of everyone, including HMRC.

Response to Making Tax Digital – Sanctions for late submission and late payment


Eaves and Co have submitted a response to the HMRC consultation document of 20 March 2017 in relation to sanctions for late submission and late payment as part of Making Tax Digital.  We have reproduced our response below.


Please feel free to comment.


Response to Making Tax Digital – Sanctions for late submission and late payment. Consultation document – 20 March 2017


This is a very difficult document to respond to, because it is so wrong headed.  When Chancellor Osbourne announced it, it was alleged to be a liberating move.  He has since been relieved of his position.  The legacy of ‘Making Tax Digital’ remains.  My concern is that, as currently drafted, it runs a high risk of ‘Making Tax Dysfunctional’.


  1. Fundamentally, if it is such a good idea, and is going to work well, so that ‘businesses flock to it’, there is absolutely no reason to make it compulsory.


  1. In a free society, businesses should have the discretion to run their own affairs as they see fit.  The proposals extend the historic system of annual filing to filing 5 income tax returns per year.  This is not ‘liberating’, it is adding extra commercial pressure and cost.


  1. The Federation of Small Business puts the costs at 10 times the HMRC estimate.  For bigger businesses the extra costs may be more.  As one provider put it, even the cost of a training seminar may well exceed FSB estimate.


  1. These costs would just be a burden if the system was compulsory with ‘sanctions’, as proposed.  If there was a benefit, which added to efficiency businesses would (and should) pay for appropriate software at market price.  No need for Government interference.


  1. On this theme, which bit of the equation:-

Government + Big Computer Idea = Cost Effective Happiness

has even been proven true?


  1. HMRC say that the Making Tax Digital programme will not save them material costs.  If the benefits therefore ensue to business, should they not be given the choice?


  1. There should be no sanctions if they decide their current systems are adequate, or perhaps even better than the HMRC ‘private licensing’ proposals?


  1. Everyone should be equal before the law.  Self-employed tax payers already suffer extra burdens in that they are more often called upon to file annual tax returns.  To make it 5 returns per annum is unfair and oppressive, especially if the stress of potential sanctions is imposed.


  1. Businesses are already obliged to maintain and produce adequate records to prepare relevant annual returns.  Understandably most view it as an unprofitable burden, accepted as part of the benefit of being a citizen of a democracy such as the UK.  Politicians should recognise though that the equation and relationship are each fragile and based on mutual trust.  To multiply by 5 the burden risks suggesting a taxpayer is untrustworthy and (with sanctions) ought to be punished for errors in compliance.  This is not a route to encourage the levels of voluntary compliance that the UK has been fortunate enough to experience historically.


  1. Recent case law on ‘reasonable excuse’ highlights the lack of HMRC sympathy and understanding on the pressures imposed by tax compliance, so would not seem to be adequate protection.


  1. In any event, this is starting from the wrong perspective.  Individuals and businesses should be free to act as they see fit to benefit the economy as a whole.  They should not be restricted by regulation to act in accordance with Government dictat, unless the action they propose is harmful.  There is already an obligation on business to keep adequate records.  This should include the freedom to keep them in accordance with specific, tailored business requirements, suitably for the business concerned, rather than following a generic algorithm designed by someone with no knowledge/interest in the particular business.  Surely it is patently obvious such freedom must be better for the UK economy as a whole.


  1. To suggest that a single ‘app’ can successfully organise management accounts from every business from baking creak cakes to running a portfolio of investment properties is too bizarre to be believable.  Any accountant will tell you the key profit indicators are going to be different.  The business software market can respond, as appropriate, but buying a government approved Trebant (historic reference) will only end in tears.


  1. Distorting the business software market by imposing ‘Government Requirements’ is providing anti free market protection for the software houses concerned.  This must be unfair and an inappropriate use of Government power.  Why?  Would this not be illegal under EU rules whilst we are still a member, pending finalisation of Brexit?


  1. In a secular, capitalist society, why can there be an exemption for ‘religion’.  Why not allow a simple commercial decision: ‘This adds cost, stress and burden for (no) business benefit.  I choose (or choose not) not to do it’?  That would allow those believing in Making Tax Digital to move ahead, without distorting the rest of the crucial, small business economy.


  1. The benefit claimed by HMRC is that small businesses would keep better records.  Some small business have poor records, it is true, but they tend to be at the bottom end of the spectrum.  As businesses grow, especially when they take on staff, record keeping becomes more important.  To state the obvious, losing a cash receipt when it goes to a pilfering employee costs 100% of the receipt.  This is undesirable for the business!  Compare to saving 20% on income tax?  Bigger business have controls.  Bigger businesses tend (by definition) to make more profits, so the ‘tax saving’ by imposing MTD is I suspect mythical.


  1. In any event, to put it into context Tesco recently paid £108m to avoid being prosecuted for financial fraud, plus more again in compensation.  How many window cleaners taking the odd tenner in cash would that amount to?  Compulsory MTD looks like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and so, in the way of many such initiatives has the appearance of overzealous behaviour by the State for little/no benefit.


  1. There may well be an argument to say that the idea is discriminatory in that it prejudices:-

a) Entrepreneurs who do not have English as their first language.

b) Those self-employed with learning difficulties etc., who may well earn a decent living with a ‘hands on’ a labouring job making them proud and independent, but would find quarterly reporting unfairly daunting.  Should they be forced on to Government benefits?  To what end?

c) Entrepreneurs who do not trust electronic intercourse for financial transactions.


  1. With regard to the latter HMRC have been somewhat patronising about ‘elderly’ taxpayers.  It is age discrimination in itself?  They have then pointed out that such people often use mobile telephones etc.  True, but there is a huge difference between making a telephone call and engaging with third party electronic transactions which may not be totally secure.


  1. The internet is inherently insecure as has been proven by a series of hacks into various Government and Business computer systems.  The NHS was recently severely disrupted by ‘relatively unsophisticated’ hackers.  The CIA has been hacked – despite (presumably) top quality security and operating protocols.  Why would any nation therefore risk putting much of its economic output on to a single system, which is also going to have the ability to demand money?  Do you think the odd criminal or foreign Government might fancy the ability to have even just a day of receipts (I’ll take 31 January, please)?


  1. The underlying ethos is that ‘Digital’ is the best.  It is new.  It is the way forward for the future.


Fine; then let it compete in the Market Place.  If it is good then there is absolutely no need to make it compulsory and penalise those who trundle along behind.


‘Digital’ is best [as a hypothesis].  Prove it by not requiring sanctions.  Freedom for taxpayers to choose.  Yes, comply with the law to submit annual returns but no to 5 times that obligation.  (Choice for business to focus on their own key profit indicators – not arbitrary rules set by centralised dictat.  If we were customers we would have gone elsewhere!]


  1. The proposed exemptions for MTD are noted.


There is a religious exemption.  How do HMRC intend to ‘police’ claims under that heading.  In this context I note the firm swearing by Elizabeth I on her Coronation, that the State should have ‘no desire to make windows into men’s souls’.


What is to happen if someone claims the exemption?

Making Tax Dysfunctional

Those Impossible Situations – A Fair Tax System?

HMRC have over recent years spent a fortune on “Management Consultants”.  Consultants preaching efficiency often talk about an 80:20 rule, pointing out that the majority of “profits” come from the “best” customers.  Great, if you are a focused, private sector profit generator.  What though if you are a Government body, which surely ought to be run by Civil Servants trained to treat all citizens equally?  We are not “customers”, despite HMRC Newspeak.  As a Firm we tend to deal with taxpayer exceptions and unusual situations, so understand that not everyone is “average”.  We believe that the tax system should cater for those who, for whatever reason, do not fit within the “normal” generality.

We are keen that the tax system should be administered fairly, in accordance with the law.

A current fear is that the present HMRC focus on penalties, with much greater fines than in the past, may result in unfairness.  The current system may result in a breakdown of trust.  Currently, it is common place for there to be greater penalties for innocent arithmetic errors in tax computations, compared to deliberate theft, say in terms of shoplifting, which apparently is below the police threshold in most cases.  Current treatment appears bias against the small business or individual taxpayer.

Here is a ‘hypothetical’ situation to consider:

  • A UK resident taxpayer leaves UK part way through year to take up a new job abroad

  • Technically, having been resident at the start of the tax year, he would be resident for the whole of it, but his new job contract means he can expect to meet the conditions for “split-year treatment” for full-time work abroad. This means he is treated as non-resident from the date he leaves the UK.  This would be common sense in most peoples’ view, not tax avoidance.  Practically, in such a situation, it also means he does not write to tell HMRC about his overseas employment.  He pays tax to the local country where he lives and works.

  • However, to get the split year UK treatment, the rules require that the taxpayer be non-UK resident in the following tax year too, by virtue of work abroad. Of course, the happy recipient of the new job offer expects to meet this, because he is going to be working abroad and intends this to continue.

  • Suppose though, for whatever reason; say, illness/ sickness/ redundancy/ war/ sheer misery at the job not being what was promised, the taxpayer returns to the UK after some months. As a result therefore, he becomes UK resident again.  Not only does this affect his tax residence status for the year of return, it also means he fails to meet the conditions for non-residence for the preceding year.

  • As a result of this, the worker is now taxable on all worldwide income for the whole of the previous tax year as well.

  • Technically, HMRC may then argue for late notification and issue penalties, even though the individual involved acted perfectly properly, in terms of his anticipated and existing circumstances at the relevant times for notifying HMRC. The required dates altered after the event, because of changed circumstances!

  • HMRC may say “They may not take the point.” With respect, that is not the principle at stake.  Ordinary, innocent actions should not be subject to a potential fine, which may [or may not] be released by State discretion.   That is not the Rule of Law, but the empowerment of bureaucrats, with obvious dangers of corrupt dealing.  We are not suggesting HMRC are corrupt, but experience with history and other jurisdictions makes the risk…kind of obvious!

We would be interested to hear people’s thoughts on how a fair tax system can potentially impose a punitive penalty on ordinary law-abiding citizens for being as “morally suspect” as to get unexpected illness?

Practical experience and thoughts on the principles welcome!

The Result is in …..

We have opened the right envelope!

Congratulations and thank you for all who correctly entered our ‘Twelve Days of Christmas’ Quiz.  Eaves and Co are pleased to announce that the winner is Catherine Rogers of Ashford Rainham Ltd.  David Stebbings recently handed over her prize.


IMG_20170217_154204 (1)

For completeness here are the answers:-


The name Santa Claus evolved from Sinter Klass, a nickname for Saint Nicholas. What language is Sinter Klaas? Dutch


What fruit is traditionally used to make a ‘Christingle’?  Orange


Who ‘Rattle and Hum’ along to Angel of Harlem?  U2


Which carol is about a 19th Century Duke of Bohemia? Good King Wenceslas


“Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents” is the first line from which literary classic by Louisa May Alcott? Little Women


Christmas Island, in the Indian Ocean, is a territory of which country? Australia


In the song ‘The Twelve Days Of Christmas’, how many swans were a-swimming? Seven


The North Pole, said to be Santa’s home, is located in which ocean? Arctic Ocean


The name of which of Santa’s reindeer means ‘Thunder’? Donner


Marzipan is made mainly from sugar and the flour or meal of which nut? Almond


Which traditional Christmas plant was once so revered by early Britons that it had to be cut with a golden sickle? Mistletoe


Who was Jacob Marley’s business partner?  Scrooge


The initial of each answer spells out DOUGLAS ADAMS.  The quote attributed to him on our website is ‘I’m spending a year dead for tax reasons’.

We are not, so look forward working with you again this year.  Remember the new tax year starts on 6 April.

The Dog Ate My….

The Dog Ate My [Homework] Tax Return


There has been much publicity recently regarding the funny [!?] HMRC Press Release regarding failed excuses for failing to file Tax Returns on time. Generally, the ‘joke’ seems to be that they are such poor excuses that they are on a par, or even worse claims that ‘The Dog Ate My Tax Return’. This shows the poor standard of education and lack of discipline in our schools. Anyone who has failed with that excuse at school should have at least graduated to ‘A Crocodile Ate My Tax Return’ with an invitation to the Tax Officer to go and retrieve it(!).

No doubt HMRC have much to put up with, and lousy excuses will inevitably test their patience. However, they are Civil servants who should be courteous and sympathetic to all tax payers – not just those they like because of them being ‘compliant’. With this in mind, I refer to the cases of P. Miller and Coomber. Case law shows HMRC are not always correct in their views on penalties. Advisors should always consider whether a penalty being charged is correct, proportional, or could even be suspended.

In the recent case of P. Miller the Courts held that HMRC were wrong in dismissing an application for a penalty to be suspended. The Judge followed the case of Hackett in focussing on the general obligations for all tax payers (rather than the narrow, specific facts of the tax payer’s own mistake) in deciding that there were sensible suspension conditions which could encourage him to avoid a future careless mistake. Thus the immediate imposition of a penalty liability could be avoided. No doubt good news for the tax payer.

HMRC had more success in the case of Coomber, where the Judge rejected a suggestion that a tax payer had a reasonable excuse for late payment when the tax cheque he had written was unexpectedly dishonoured by his bank. Reading the case in detail, it appears to be an object lesson in presenting all relevant evidence and ensuring it is correct in detail. Quoting from Clean Car Co Ltd, the Judge said, ‘The test of whether or not there is a reasonable excuse is an objective one … Was what the tax payer did a reasonable thing for a responsible trader, conscious of and intending to comply with his obligations regarding tax, but having the experience and other relevant attributes of the tax payer, and placed in the situation the taxpayer found himself at the relevant time a reasonable thing to do?’

From the Judge’s comments it may have proved better for the tax payer if he had produced evidence of why the bank dishonoured the cheque (any why it was unexpected) plus better documentary evidence as to the precise dates of events. It is plain details can affect the Judge’s view as to the strength of a case. In this new era of quasi-automatic penalties advisors need to be on alert for sensible mitigating circumstances. Reasonable excuses do go beyond ‘Disaster, death and disease’, to quote the HMRC general view, but throw the excuse ‘A Crocodile Ate My Tax Return’ on the fire!

What are advisors current experiences of penalties and mitigation?