As reported, HMRC made an application to withdraw its case against the ROSIIP investors who were fighting against a decision by the Revenue to chase them for tax and charges of up to 55% of the amount they transferred to the Singapore-based ROSIIP QROPS.
However, the judge in the tribunal, Mr Justice Charles, said he would only accept HMRC’s application to withdraw if, within 21 days, the Revenue confirmed it would produce what Mr Justice Charles described as a “policy statement”.
A spokesperson for HMRC confirmed it had “provided the information the Court required”, but said it was up to the judge whether or not the information can be released.
Sources close to the matter said early indications were that HMRC’s submission was likely to be positive for the industry, perhaps “wiping the slate clean” for historic cases and leading to more thorough policing and investigation into schemes which are not up to the mark.
In addition to the policy statement, the judge had also asked for an apology from HMRC for its behaviour in the case. During the tribunal it transpired that HMRC had made a decision in the past not to pursue investors in a similar scheme, called Beazley, but had informed the judge that this case had no bearing on the ROSIIP proceedings.
However, it became apparent that, rather than being very different cases, the two were in fact very similar and as much had been acknowledged by a senior lawyer within HMRC before the tribunal began. On learning of this, Mr Justice Charles was very agitated and criticised HMRC for its poor disclosure during the process.
