Why our colleagues are proud to work for us
Our 30 second video gives an overview of our score for pride at work in the Sunday Times Best Place to Work survey.
An interesting case in the Tax Tribunal demonstrated that when it comes to dealings with HMRC, failing to reveal relevant information can be just as expensive as providing false information.
The case was that of 'Timothy Clayton Hutchings -v- HMRC '.
Mr Hutchings was the residuary beneficiary of the estate of his late father but not the executor. When a person dies, any gifts they have made in the last few years of their life can affect the inheritance tax payable. The executors therefore asked Mr Hutchings whether he was aware of any gifts his father had made, both in a letter and also in a conversation. Mr Hutchings failed to respond to either enquiry. The executors took this to mean that he was not aware of any gifts and submitted the required form to provide details of the estate to HMRC accordingly.
It subsequently transpired that Mr Hutchings' father had, in fact, transferred ¬£450,000 from an offshore bank account to Mr Hutchings during his lifetime, which Mr Hutchings Junior had failed to reveal. HMRC became aware of this through an anonymous tip off and claimed the additional tax due of around ¬£47,000 from Mr Hutchings Junior, together with a penalty of ¬£87,553.00.
The relevant statutory provision states that a penalty is payable by a person where they have deliberately supplied false information or deliberately withheld information with the intention that a declaration of tax liabilities to HMRC would be inaccurate.
While he accepted that he was responsible for the additional tax of ¬£47,000, Mr Hutchings argued in the Tribunal case that he should not have to pay a penalty because he had not actually said that no gifts had been made. He also argued that he should not be responsible for the penalty because he had no legal obligation to report the gifts and it was the responsibility of the executors to report the relevant information to HMRC.
The Tax Tribunal, however, upheld the penalty, finding that Mr Hutchings had deliberately and dishonestly withheld information about the offshore bank accounts and held that the penalty provisions applied regardless of whether a tax payer had an underlying legal duty to provide information to the executors.
The Tribunal also considered whether the executors should be responsible for the penalty but found that they should not. On the facts of the case, it was held that having asked Mr Hutchings twice whether he was aware of any gifts, they were entitled to rely on the fact that he did not reveal any in submitting the form to HMRC.
The case highlights a number of points of importance in relation to estates:
The moral is that when it comes to dealings with HMRC, you should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If you'd like to discuss any of the issues raised in the article please contact any member of our Personal Law Team
Contact our offices
Make an enquiry