Settling large tax disputes : HM Revenue & Customs

The National Audit Office has concluded, on the basis of an examination by former High Court tax judge Sir Andrew Park of five large tax settlements, that all five settlements were reasonable and at least one may have been better than reasonable.

However, there were concerns about the processes by which the settlements were reached and over poor internal communication of the reasons for settlement which resulted in a loss of confidence in the settlements, both internally and externally.

These large settlements are complex and there is no clear answer to what represents the 'right' tax liability.

In each case, there was a range of justifiable positions the Department might have taken.

The NAO's examination included consideration of whether the settlement in each case was as good as or better than the outcome that might be expected from litigation, taking into account the risks, cost, uncertainties and timescale of that option.

It is not clear that all settlements were fully compatible with the Department's Litigation and Settlement Strategy. For instance, there are some disputes where the only possible outcomes are either that the taxpayer owes nothing or that it owes the full amount.

In these circumstances, the Department's Litigation and Settlement Strategy does not permit 'splitting the difference'.

The Department has acknowledged that its governance processes need strengthening and is introducing new arrangements, including the appointment of an assurance Commissioner, who will approve all large settlements