Case study · Tax Litigation
Challenging penalties and derivative liability proceedings
We defended an individual facing personal liability and penalties arising from the tax debts of a company, separating the statutory tests from the underlying assessment.
The proceedings sought to transfer company tax exposure to an individual who had held a management role during the relevant period.
An effective defence required close analysis of conduct, knowledge, timing and the authority’s reasoning rather than treating liability as automatic.
The challenge
- Interdependence between the company assessment and personal proceedings.
- Allegations based on role rather than specific conduct.
- Immediate collection and guarantee considerations.
- Different appeal deadlines for related decisions.
Our approach
Technical precision, focused on the client.
Test every element
We separated the statutory requirements and matched each one against the authority’s evidence and reasoning.
Reconstruct decisions
Board records, delegated authorities and contemporaneous advice were used to establish who decided what and when.
Manage exposure
Appeals, suspension and guarantee options were coordinated so that procedural steps did not undermine the substantive defence.
The outcome
The defence focused the proceedings on the evidence of actual conduct and the legal limits of derivative liability.
A coordinated timetable preserved appeal rights and gave the client a clear view of financial exposure while the matter progressed.
Personal liability must be proved through specific facts and statutory reasoning; a title or position is not a substitute for evidence.
The Lullius approach
