Q&As

Q&As

These Q&As seek to briefly address common questions faced when dealing with tax matters.

The Q&As supplement and link to other more detailed content, but are intentionally short. It is anticipated that a brief Q&A will be most helpful when a quick overview of an issue and its likely impact is required. This might arise, for example, for lawyers needing to provide advice, provide business development or training at short notice. The Q&A content is date stamped. This date is the publish date and states the law at

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Tax News

FTT finds that hair transplant is not a medical procedure and is therefore not exempt from VAT (Advanced Hair Technology Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Advanced Hair Technology Ltd, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found that for the sample cases reviewed, hair transplant services did not qualify for the VAT exemption covering medical care.

Court of Appeal considers further procedural issues in relation to double tax relief for foreign dividends (HMRC v Appellants in the Post Prudential Closure Notice Group)

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Appellants in the Post Prudential Closure Notice Group, the Court of Appeal considered a number of procedural issues relating to the ongoing group litigation on the pre-2009 dividend regime which contravened EU law.

FTT dismisses HMRC’s strike out claim in relation to DIY Housebuilders Scheme (Chris Poulton v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Chris Poulton v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed HMRC’s application to strike out the appellant’s claim for a VAT refund under the DIY Housebuilders Scheme. The appellant had been incorrectly charged VAT by a supplier and sought to apply the Reemtsma principle to reclaim the VAT from HMRC. The FTT considered that the point was arguable and therefore did not accede to the strike out request.

Provider’s duty of care did not extend to liability for tax charges from future voluntary crystallisation events (Mr R, CAS-54306-K6B1)

Pensions analysis: In the determination of Mr R, (CAS-54306-K6B1), the Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about a delay in crystalising pension benefits where he suffered high-rate tax on future pension withdrawals and used up more of his lifetime allowance than necessary. While the delay was maladministration, neither the transferring nor receiving scheme was liable for future tax charges. Futhermore, the complainant's loss was offset by a higher tax-free lump sum from increased fund value, resulting in a lower overall tax bill. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.