R (Rowe and others) v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 2105

Dozens of film-scheme investors challenged HMRC's power to demand disputed tax up front, before any tribunal had decided whether it was actually owed. The Court of Appeal's answer settled the constitutional legality of the Accelerated Payment Notice regime, and closed off the broadest lines of attack on it for good.

Why This Case Matters

Rowe is the leading authority on the lawfulness of the Accelerated Payment Notice and Follower Notice regime introduced by Finance Act 2014, and remains the starting point for any judicial review challenge to an APN. It was the lead case for a very large group of taxpayers, primarily participants in film-financing avoidance schemes, and its outcome effectively determined the fate of the regime as a whole, since the same broad constitutional arguments could otherwise have been raised in every subsequent APN dispute.

The Facts

The claimants were among many hundreds of taxpayers who had participated in marketed tax avoidance arrangements, principally schemes involving film-related partnerships, and who had been issued with Accelerated Payment Notices or, for those who had invested through partnerships, Partner Payment Notices, requiring them to pay HMRC an amount equal to the disputed tax before any tribunal had determined whether that tax was actually due.

The claimants sought judicial review of HMRC's decisions to issue the notices, arguing that the APN regime as a whole was unlawful on several grounds: that requiring payment of tax before liability was established was impermissibly retrospective in its practical effect on arrangements entered into before the legislation existed; that it interfered with their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights in a way that was disproportionate; and that the process by which HMRC decided to issue the notices was procedurally unfair.

Procedural History

• High Court (Simler J): dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review, upholding the lawfulness of the APN regime and the notices issued.
• Court of Appeal: dismissed the claimants' further appeal, upholding the High Court's decision on all grounds.

The Issue

Whether the Accelerated Payment Notice and Partner Payment Notice regime under Part 4 of the Finance Act 2014, and the individual notices issued to the claimants under it, were unlawful on grounds of impermissible retrospectivity, breach of the right to property under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, or procedural unfairness.

The Ratio Decidendi

On retrospectivity, the Court's reasoning drew a sharp distinction between changing a taxpayer's substantive liability after the event, which would raise genuine retrospectivity concerns, and changing only the cash-flow timing of a payment obligation in respect of a liability that was, and always had been, disputed. Since the underlying tax liability itself was unaffected by the APN, and remained subject to determination by the tribunal in the ordinary way, the Court held there was no true retrospective alteration of anyone's legal position.

On proportionality under A1P1, the Court weighed the significant cash-flow burden an APN imposes against the strength of the public interest Parliament had identified: removing the economic incentive for taxpayers to enter marketed avoidance schemes and then use the ordinary appeal timetable to retain disputed funds, sometimes for years, while the dispute was resolved. The built-in safeguards, including HMRC's obligation to consider representations within 90 days and the confined statutory gateways for issuing a notice in the first place (broadly, a DOTAS reference number, a GAAR counteraction notice, or an existing follower notice), were treated as sufficient to keep the regime within the margin of proportionate interference.

What Remains Open to Challenge

Rowe settled the broad, regime-wide constitutional challenges, but it did not immunise every individual APN from challenge. Several narrower routes remain genuinely available.

• Whether the statutory conditions for issuing the specific notice were actually satisfied, for example whether the arrangements genuinely fell within the DOTAS reference relied upon, or whether a valid follower notice or GAAR counteraction notice actually preceded the APN.
• Procedural errors specific to the individual notice, as opposed to the process by which the regime as a whole operates, which Rowe did not consider defective.
• Genuine hardship representations, which remain a distinct route within the statutory scheme itself, rather than a public law challenge to the regime.
• Errors in HMRC's calculation of the amount demanded, which is a quantum question rather than a challenge to the lawfulness of issuing a notice at all.

Practitioner Application

• Do not run the retrospectivity or A1P1 arguments settled in Rowe as freestanding grounds. Advisers should assume these routes are closed absent materially different facts capable of being distinguished from the reasoning in the case.
• Focus challenges on the specific statutory gateway relied on. Whether the DOTAS number genuinely covers the arrangements in question, or whether a follower notice was validly given, is where individual APN challenges now succeed or fail.
• Use the 90-day representations window properly. Since the regime's proportionality was upheld partly on the strength of this safeguard, failing to engage with it substantively weakens both the immediate prospects of withdrawal and any later challenge.
• Advise clients on cash-flow planning early. Given that the broad legal challenges are settled, the practical priority for most APN recipients is managing the immediate payment obligation, including Time to Pay arrangements, while the underlying dispute continues.

Frequently Asked Questions