England and Wales Case Law

The Commissioners for HMRC v Purity Limited

It is just and equitable to wind up Purity Limited in the public interest under section 85 of the Finance Act 2022 due to substantial detriment to public revenue, lack of transparency, and continuation of a previous tax avoidance business, and compulsory liquidation is appropriate despite existing voluntary liquidation to ensure proper investigation and deterrence.

Source excerpt

• Public interest winding up
• Tax avoidance schemes
• Promoters of tax avoidance
• Creditors' voluntary liquidation
• Compulsory liquidation

Read case analysis

HSJ Consultancy Limited (in liquidation), Re

The High Court held that directors breached their duties by entering aggressive tax schemes without proper creditor consideration and ordered them to repay £436,500.

• Directors' duties
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Misfeasance
• Limitation
• Equitable compensation
• Tax avoidance schemes

Read case analysis

Barriball & Anor v Jackson & Anor (Re HSJ Consultancy Ltd)

Barriball & Anor v Jackson & Anor (Re HSJ Consultancy Ltd) [2026] EWHC 1135 (Ch) (13 May 2026)

The High Court held that the directors of HSJ Consultancy Limited breached their duties by entering tax avoidance schemes while the company was insolvent or made insolvent.

• Directors' duties
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Creditor duty
• Tax avoidance schemes
• Limitation
• Ratification of director conduct

Read case analysis

Rune Madsen v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Tribunal allowed an SDLT appeal, holding that a disclosure letter sent within the enquiry window meant the later discovery assessment was invalid.

• Stamp duty land tax (sdlt)
• Discovery assessment
• Disclosure requirements
• Tax avoidance schemes
• Finance act 2003 section 45
• Finance act 2003 schedule 10

Read case analysis

Bilfinger Salamis UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Upper Tribunal dismissed Bilfinger Salamis UK’s appeal on secondary Class 1 NICs, holding that “made available” in the host employer provision bears its ordinary meaning.

• National insurance contributions
• Secondary class 1 nics
• Statutory interpretation
• Host employer provision
• Tax avoidance schemes
• National-insurance-contributions

Read case analysis

Rokos, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue and Customs

Rokos, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue and Customs [2026] EWHC 733 (Admin) (26 March 2026)

The High Court dismissed Christopher Rokos’s judicial review challenge to HMRC’s amendments, holding that enquiry notices for two film partnerships were validly given through authorised agents.

• Tax avoidance schemes
• Partnership tax returns
• Statutory notice requirements
• Judicial review of hmrc decisions
• Agency in tax matters
• Tax-law

Read case analysis

Christopher Rokos, R (on the application of) v The Commissioners for HMRC

The High Court held HMRC validly opened partnership enquiries and lawfully issued consequential amendments to Mr Rokos, finding notice to the schemes’ authorised agents was sufficient.

• Tax avoidance schemes
• Judicial review of hmrc decisions
• Statutory interpretation
• Agency in tax matters
• Service of statutory notices
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

Anthony Outram & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

HMRC did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that either appellant knew or suspected their tax returns were inaccurate or that they deliberately avoided confirming any suspicion. The appellants relied on professional advice and believed the arrangements were legitimate. There was no evidence of deliberate inaccuracy or blind-eye knowledge at the time of filing the returns. Therefore, the extended time limit for discovery assessments under section 36(1A)(a) TMA 1970 does not apply.

Source excerpt

• Income tax
• Discovery assessments
• Deliberate inaccuracy
• Time limits for assessment
• Tax avoidance schemes

Read case analysis

The Commissioners for HMRC v Andrew O’Brien

Loans received by the appellant from the ECL Employee Benefit Trust during the relevant tax year constituted employment income taxable under ITEPA 2003; the appellant’s tax return did not adequately disclose the loans as taxable income, and a hypothetical officer could not have been reasonably expected to be aware of the insufficiency, rendering the discovery assessment valid under s.29(5) TMA 1970.

Source excerpt

• Income tax
• Discovery assessments
• Employment income
• Tax avoidance schemes

Read case analysis

Simon Fleet v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence that he owned or gifted the shares to Milia, and Milia did not meet the definition of a charity under UK law. The Appellant was careless in not conducting due diligence or retaining adequate documentation, resulting in a careless inaccuracy in his tax return. The penalty was properly due and correctly calculated.

Source excerpt

• Charitable giving relief
• Income tax act 2007
• Careless inaccuracy
• Tax avoidance schemes
• Penalty assessment

Read case analysis