Removing penalties without key evidence. Impossible, right?

A robust recalculation of the tax

In recent years, Buzzacott have received instructions from several individuals who have disposed of property for a gain, but did not have evidence of their improvement expenditure. Strictly speaking, in order to claim a deduction for expenditure, a taxpayer is required to evidence that expenditure. Therefore, HMRC will often state that in the absence of supporting evidence, it will not allow a deduction.

In reality, when HMRC raises an assessment, in order for the assessment to be validly made, it must be made in accordance with best judgement. Therefore, HMRC’s assessments must factor in a level of improvement expenditure that is consistent with the increase in a property’s value, during the period of ownership. 

Buzzacott’s Tax Investigations team have devised a formula for calculating allowable property expenditure in the absence of supporting documentation. Our formula is so robustly designed that HMRC has never even attempted to challenge it. In George’s case, this resulted in tax assessments originally worth more than £200,000, being reduced to less than £40,000.

HMRC’s failure to follow their own guidance results in no penalty 

Whenever HMRC discovers irregularities in a person’s tax affairs, it’s obligated to consider charging an appropriate financial penalty. In this case, George had acknowledged his behaviour was deliberate, and therefore HMRC had advised that it intended to charge a deliberate penalty.

However as financial penalties, even in civil cases, are criminal sanctions, it’s incumbent on HMRC to make taxpayers aware of their rights under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. The appropriate time for HMRC to do so is when it first discovers an irregularity in a person’s tax affairs. HMRC has issued guidance to its caseworkers, confirming that officers should issue taxpayers with two factsheets – one on penalties, and one on Human Rights, as soon as an irregularity is discovered. However, in this case, HMRC failed to issue either factsheet at the appropriate time.

When George approached Buzzacott, we conducted a full review of the case papers and identified that HMRC had failed to issue the relevant factsheets at the appropriate time. Crucially, George had continued to cooperate with HMRC after the irregularities had first been discovered. This meant, he had effectively incriminated himself without fair warning of his right to not self-incriminate.

In our response to HMRC, Buzzacott explained that HMRC had not only calculated the tax liabilities incorrectly but had also allowed an unrepresented taxpayer to incriminate himself without fair warning. We cited various pieces of case-law, as well as HMRC’s own guidance to support our view that despite George’s acknowledgement of deliberate behaviour, HMRC could not legally charge a financial penalty.

After careful consideration, HMRC confirmed that it had breached George’s human rights and, therefore, would not be charging a penalty.

Another happy client

This case demonstrates the value that a specialist tax investigations team can offer, even at a very late stage of an investigation. Had George not sought a second opinion, he would have ended up paying more than £300,000 to HMRC. Within just four months of appointing Buzzacott, his case had been settled for £38,000 – a saving of more than 87%.

Here's what George had to say

Get help today

Call us today on +44 (0)20 7710 3389 or fill in the form below and a member of our team will be in touch. All communications are in the strictest confidence.