Rodgers v Revenue & Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Other) [2018] UKFTT 415 (TC) (31 July 2018)

Rodgers v Revenue & Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Other) [2018] UKFTT 415 (TC) (31 July 2018)

The appellant, while acting as a tax agent, deliberately created false invoices to enable his client to understate tax liabilities. This conduct was objectively dishonest under the standards set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos and met the statutory definition in Schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012. No binding assurance was given by HMRC to the appellant precluding civil action. HMRC satisfied the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

Citation
[2018] UKFTT 415
Parties
Appellant: Colin Rodgers; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conduct Notice (tax Agent Dishonest Conduct) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; HMRC's determination of dishonest conduct confirmed.
Legal Topics
Income Tax, VAT, Dishonest Conduct by Tax Agents, Finance Act 2012 Schedule 38, Civil Penalties, Appeals Procedure
Tax Law Administrative Law Income Tax VAT Dishonest Conduct by Tax Agents Finance Act 2012 Schedule 38 Civil Penalties Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Rodgers

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Conduct Notice (tax Agent Dishonest Conduct) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant engaged in dishonest conduct as a tax agent under Schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012
  2. 2 Whether HMRC breached any promise or assurance to the appellant regarding prosecution or civil action
  3. 3 Whether the procedural safeguards and fairness requirements were met

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, while acting as a tax agent, deliberately created false invoices to enable his client to understate tax liabilities. This conduct was objectively dishonest under the standards set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos and met the statutory definition in Schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012. No binding assurance was given by HMRC to the appellant precluding civil action. HMRC satisfied the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; HMRC's determination of dishonest conduct confirmed.

Orders

  • The determination within the Conduct Notice that the appellant acted dishonestly as a tax agent is confirmed pursuant to paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012.
  • The appellant's appeal is dismissed.