Barlow v Revenue & Customs (for failure to take corrective action following service of Follower Notice) [2020] UKFTT 486 (TC) (30 November 2020)

Barlow v Revenue & Customs (for failure to take corrective action following service of Follower Notice) [2020] UKFTT 486 (TC) (30 November 2020)

Mr Barlow did not demonstrate that his reliance on Montpelier’s advice was reasonable in all the circumstances, given lack of evidence about their expertise and failure to critically assess discrepancies. However, his cooperation in providing information and taking corrective action warrants a reduction in penalty to 25% of the denied advantage, reflecting equal weighting of timing, nature, and extent of cooperation.

Citation
[2020] UKFTT 486 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Raymond Barlow; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
30 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Penalties upheld; reduction applied
Legal Topics
Follower Notice Penalties, Finance Act 2014, Corrective Action, Penalty Reduction
Tax Law Follower Notice Penalties Finance Act 2014 Corrective Action Penalty Reduction

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Barlow

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for the taxpayer not to have taken corrective action following service of Follower Notices
  2. 2 Whether the penalty reduction applied by HMRC reflects the quality of cooperation as required by section 210 FA 2014

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Barlow did not demonstrate that his reliance on Montpelier’s advice was reasonable in all the circumstances, given lack of evidence about their expertise and failure to critically assess discrepancies. However, his cooperation in providing information and taking corrective action warrants a reduction in penalty to 25% of the denied advantage, reflecting equal weighting of timing, nature, and extent of cooperation.

Court Disposition

Penalties upheld; reduction applied

Orders

  • Penalties reduced to 25% of the denied advantage for each relevant tax year