In Anthony Ashbolt and Simon Arundell v HMRC & anor [2020] BTC 17, an application for judicial review over a decision that allowed HMRC to issue search and seizure warrants in respect of financial advisers who used a disguised remuneration scheme was denied. HMRC had good reason to issue the warrants due to the risk that that relevant evidence might be destroyed, concealed, fabricated, or that collusion might take place between the suspects and/or the scheme promoters.

Search and seize warrants had been issued by the Crown court which was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that an indictable offence had been committed and that documents could have been destroyed and other documents fabricated.

The High Court held that the warrants were lawfully issued and the claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Links

Promoters of Tax Avoidance Schemes
Who is a Promoter? What are the Promoters of Tax Avoidance Scheme rules?  What does this mean for promoters, intermediaries and clients?

Disguised Remuneration Zone
What is disguised remuneration? How can I settle disguised remuneration, EBT or contractor loans with HMRC? What are the disguised remuneration settlement terms?

Disguised Remuneration Loan Charge
When do the loan charge and disguised remuneration rules apply?

HMRC tracks tax scheme promoters
In Qubic Tax and others v HMRC [2020] TC7701, HMRC successfully made information requests on tax advisers selling and engaging in tax avoidance schemes in order to check on commission payments made to introducers and the validity of the tax schemes.

External links

Anthony Ashbolt and Simon Arundell v R & C Commrs [2020] BTC 17