Nichola Ross Martin has provided an analysis of last Friday’s HMRC decision to press ahead with a petition to the House of Lords to hear a final appeal.
At the same time, HMRC suggested taxpayers behave as though the CA was the final ruling on the matter. All of which I reported as bizarre , a sentiment with which Geoff Jones seems to agree. But as always with these things, life quickly becomes confusing.
HMRC has ominously said :
"The legislation applies in a wide range of circumstances, including income from small companies and partnerships but it does not apply to income from those companies and partnerships that have normal commercial arrangements."
The implication is clear. HMRC is trying for artificiality an issue that is always fraught with problems. Is their advice helpful?
"… taxpayers whose circumstances are consistent with the situation in Jones v Garnett are entitled to self assess or, within the time limits allowed, amend a self assessment in accordance with that judgement. Clearly, each individual case is different and it is not easy to lay down a clear line which defines whether a case is consistent with Jones v Garnett. To that extent taxpayers will need to be guided by their advisers."
Excuse me? Is it me or is HMRC saying two conflicting things in the same breath? I think so. What’s more, I believe practitioners are potentially exposed and need heed what they say.
If you look back over the history of this case , it is not so long since experts said this case was all but lost. So if the analysis revealed that, then just how can practitioners be sure they have a thorough understanding of the current position?
