Estoppel and Abuse of Process in Schedule 36 FA 2008 Notices: Analysis of Hegarty & Anor v Revenue & Customs (2018)
Introduction
The case of Hegarty & Anor v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX/TAXATION OF CHARGEABLE GAINS : Other) ([2018] UKFTT 774 (TC)) was heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) in December 2018. The appellants, Mr. Michael Hegarty and Mrs. Flora Hegarty, contested the issuance of information and document notices by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008. These notices pertained to the disposal of land at 22 Station Rd, Moneymore, Co Londonderry, raised concerns about potential capital gains tax (CGT) liabilities and the correctness of claims for Business Asset Taper Relief (BATR).
Summary of the Judgment
The Tribunal examined whether HMRC was estopped from issuing or enforcing the notices based on res judicata or abuse of process, and whether Condition B of paragraph 21 Schedule 36 was satisfied. The Tribunal found that HMRC failed to meet Condition B as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellants deliberately under-assessed their tax liabilities. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the appellants' appeal, setting aside both notices issued by HMRC.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The Judgment extensively referenced several key legal precedents:
- Res Judicata: The Tribunal considered the principles established in Dorset County Council v Crown Estates Commissioners [1990], Easinghall Ltd v HMRC [2016], and Littlewoods Retail Ltd & Others v HMRC [2014]. It determined that res judicata does not prevent HMRC from issuing new notices in separate tax years.
- Abuse of Process: The Tribunal examined concepts from Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991], Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1981], and recent decisions like Spring Capital Ltd v HMRC [2017]. It concluded that HMRC's actions did not constitute an abuse of process.
- Schedule 36 FA 2008 Interpretation: The Tribunal interpreted the requirements of Schedule 36, drawing parallels with sections of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970) and relevant case law to assess whether HMRC met its burden of proof.
Legal Reasoning
The core of the Tribunal's legal reasoning centered on whether HMRC had demonstrated sufficient grounds to suspect that the appellants had under-assessed their capital gains tax liabilities. Under Schedule 36 FA 2008, specifically paragraph 21(6), Condition B requires HMRC to have a "reason to suspect" that an amount ought to have been assessed to relevant tax.
The Tribunal scrutinized HMRC's lack of evidence, noting that Miss McKinney, the HMRC officer responsible for the investigation, did not provide substantive evidence to support the suspicion of deliberate tax under-assessment. The appellants argued convincingly that without clear evidence or testimony from HMRC officials, Condition B was unmet.
Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the arguments related to estoppel and abuse of process, ultimately rejecting HMRC's reliance on res judicata principles and finding no abuse in HMRC's issuance of revised notices.
Impact
This Judgment reinforces the necessity for HMRC to provide clear, evidential support when issuing information notices under Schedule 36 FA 2008. It delineates the boundaries of HMRC's powers, particularly emphasizing that suspicions must be substantiated to meet legal standards. Future cases involving Schedule 36 notices will likely reference this decision to determine whether HMRC has adequately demonstrated the required grounds for suspicion, thereby ensuring taxpayer protections against unfounded investigations.
Moreover, the decision clarifies the application of res judicata and abuse of process within the tax tribunal context, providing guidance on how these doctrines interact with statutory provisions like Schedule 36.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Schedule 36 FA 2008 Notices
Schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008 outlines the conditions under which HMRC can request additional information or documents from taxpayers to verify their tax positions. Specifically, paragraph 1 allows HMRC to issue notices requiring information deemed "reasonably required" for tax position checks.
Condition B of Paragraph 21 Schedule 36
Condition B mandates that HMRC must have a genuine reason to suspect that a taxpayer has under-assessed their tax liabilities. This suspicion must be based on evidence that suggests deliberate conduct leading to tax loss.
Res Judicata
Res judicata is a legal doctrine preventing parties from re-litigating issues that have already been decided in previous legal proceedings. In tax cases, it typically applies within the same tax year but does not extend to different years or separate matters.
Abuse of Process
Abuse of process refers to the misuse of legal procedures in a way that is unfair or unjust to one of the parties involved. It seeks to prevent actions that, while not illegal, undermine the integrity of the judicial system.
Conclusion
The Hegarty & Anor v Revenue & Customs (2018) Judgment serves as a pivotal reference point for the interpretation and application of Schedule 36 FA 2008 notices. By upholding the appellants' appeal due to HMRC's failure to meet Condition B, the Tribunal underscores the importance of substantiated suspicions in tax investigations. Additionally, the clear delineation against the misuse of res judicata and the affirmation that HMRC must avoid abusing legal processes fortify taxpayer protections. This decision not only impacts how HMRC conducts future investigations but also ensures that taxpayers receive fair treatment under the law.
Comments