Key Facts
- •Mr. Cattrell invested in a gilt strips scheme marketed by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC).
- •HMRC assessed additional tax, leading to a closure notice demanding £366,932.50.
- •Mr. Cattrell appealed, arguing the enquiry was invalidly notified and/or estoppel by convention applied.
- •The core dispute centered on whether a valid notice of enquiry was issued on April 28, 2005.
- •Mr. Cattrell participated in a Representative Sample Agreement (RSA) with HMRC through PWC.
Legal Principles
Requirements for a valid notice of enquiry under sections 9A and 115 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970).
Taxes Management Act 1970
Deemed service of documents sent by post under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Interpretation Act 1978
Principles of estoppel by convention as established in Tinkler v HMRC [2022] AC 886.
Tinkler v HMRC [2022] AC 886
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that a valid notice of enquiry was issued, sent, and received by Mr. Cattrell on or about April 28, 2005. This finding was based on HMRC's internal records, inferences drawn from PWC's awareness of the enquiry, inconsistencies in Mr. Cattrell's recollection, and the overall context of the case. The Tribunal also determined that estoppel by convention did not apply.