Julian was called to the Bar in 1995 and he has been a partner with major City and West End solicitors’ practices. During the course of Julian’s practice in tax (advisory, enquiries and disputes work) he has developed a wide-ranging knowledge of company, partnership, intellectual property, trusts and insolvency law. This enables him to advise clients with a good appreciation of the wider issues relevant to them.
He acts as an advocate and in an advisory capacity, and has appeared both on his own and as part of a team in a wide variety of cases.
Julian is able to appear in all major cities where FTT has hearings such as London, Manchester and Edinburgh.
Barristers in England and Wales are regulated by the Bar Standards Board
Julian Hickey’s expertise enables him to advise individuals, whether self-employed, employees, or directors, and companies on serious civil or criminal HMRC tax investigations and prosecutions. In Julian’s experience, the outcome of such investigations often turns on how the individual or company responds to HMRC’s enquiries and investigations. It is very important to take timely professional advice to mitigate tax penalties, identify the extent of any tax exposure to try and ensure a settlement is reached on favourable terms.
If you need help dealing with an HMRC Tax Enquiry or preparing for an HMRC tax investigation then get in touch with Julian for cost-effective advice, representation and support. Julian is happy to work as part of a team with other advisers, and/or where appropriate advise on a sole basis.
Julian Hickey has considerable experience in advising on and drafting applications for permission to appeal tax judgements at all levels of the courts, including the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal, as well as representing clients at substantive hearings.
His experience before the Court of Appeal includes:
Oisin Fanning [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (Court of Appeal) concerns whether the grant of an option by B to C was within subsale relief so that no SDLT applied to an earlier contract between A and B even if B occupied the property. The matter is the lead case for 41 appeals, representing tax at stake of over £4million. The issue concerned whether the SDLT planning resulted in nil liability. This turned on: (a) whether the grant of the option was an “other transaction” within s.45(1)(b) FA 2003 (the subsale rules); (b) the extent to which the consideration to be brought into account under s45(3) FA 2003 was solely £100 paid on grant of the Option; and not £5million (being the consideration paid to the original vendor(A)); (c) whether the option was a deemed secondary contract within s.45(3) FA 2003, which had been substantially performed by payment of the option price, so that the contract between the original vendor (A) and intermediate purchaser (B) was disregarded.
Link here for decision: Fanning v Revenue & Customs [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (13 March 2023) (bailii.org)
Paul Bell v Mark Mitchell, HMRC v Mark Mitchell [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (Court of Appeal) considers material points on the interaction of (i) HMRC’s statutory powers under s.18(2)(a),(c) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 to make voluntary disclosure of a taxpayer’s confidential documents to a co-appellant in circumstances where that party is blaming the taxpayer for deliberate tax inaccuracies; and (ii) the extent (if any) of the First-Tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers under the Tribunal Procedure (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 to control and/or prohibit the disclosure by HMRC of such documents.
I argued that s.18 must be read narrowly to protect the fundamental right of taxpayer
confidentiality: R (Ingenious Media Holdings plc) [2016]; that s18(2)(a) did not give HMRC an unrestricted power to make disclosure, s.18(2)(c) was the basis for disclosure in civil proceedings; such disclosure being subject to the common law rules on admissibility and the power of the FTT to exclude evidence under Rules 5, 15, 27. Court held (i) applied. Overturned successful outcomes in FTT and UT.
Link here for Decision: Mitchell & Anor v Revenue and Customs [2023] EWCA Civ 261 (10 March 2023) (bailii.org)
With over 20 years of tax advisory and litigation experience Julian Hickey can guide you on the merits of making a judicial review application and can draft grounds for judicial review. He can recommend what relevant evidence needs to be identified in support of your application and represent you throughout the proceedings, including at the substantive hearing.
Julian can help you by:
During Julian’s practice career, first as a solicitor and then as a barrister, he has developed a wide-ranging knowledge and understanding of company, partnership, intellectual property, trusts and insolvency law. This enables him to advise clients with a good appreciation of the wider issues relevant to these cases.
Professional experience
Advising and representing clients on:
Oisin Fanning [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (Court of Appeal) concerns whether the grant of an option by B to C was within subsale relief so that no SDLT applied to an earlier contract between A and B even if B occupied the property. The matter is the lead case for 41 appeals, representing tax at stake of over £4million. The issue concerned whether the SDLT planning resulted in nil liability. This turned on: (a) whether the grant of the option was an “other transaction” within s.45(1)(b) FA 2003 (the subsale rules); (b) the extent to which the consideration to be brought into account under s45(3) FA 2003 was solely £100 paid on grant of the Option; and not £5million (being the consideration paid to the original vendor(A)); (c) whether the option was a deemed secondary contract within s.45(3) FA 2003, which had been substantially performed by payment of the option price, so that the contract between the original vendor (A) and intermediate purchaser (B) was disregarded.
Link here for decision: Fanning v Revenue & Customs [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (13 March 2023) (bailii.org)
Paul Bell v Mark Mitchell, HMRC v Mark Mitchell [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (Court of Appeal) considers material points on the interaction of (i) HMRC’s statutory powers under s.18(2)(a),(c) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 to make voluntary disclosure of a taxpayer’s confidential documents to a co-appellant in circumstances where that party is blaming the taxpayer for deliberate tax inaccuracies; and (ii) the extent (if any) of the First-Tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers under the Tribunal Procedure (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 to control and/or prohibit the disclosure by HMRC of such documents.
I argued that s.18 must be read narrowly to protect the fundamental right of taxpayer
confidentiality: R (Ingenious Media Holdings plc) [2016]; that s18(2)(a) did not give HMRC an unrestricted power to make disclosure, s.18(2)(c) was the basis for disclosure in civil proceedings; such disclosure being subject to the common law rules on admissibility and the power of the FTT to exclude evidence under Rules 5, 15, 27. Court held (i) applied. Overturned successful outcomes in FTT and UT.
Link here for Decision: Mitchell & Anor v Revenue and Customs [2023] EWCA Civ 261 (10 March 2023) (bailii.org)
Kavanagh v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 173 establishes the principle that if a trust exists over unsegregated property a claim to entrepreneurs relief is available. I made legal submissions on whether a trust existed (whether express, constructive or implied) over a decimal percentage of shares held by other shareholders; and whether this justified a claim to entrepreneurs’ relief under the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, sections 169I and 169S; further whether an unidentified percentage of shares met the requirement for certainty of subject-matter to constitute a trust; and whether or not the appellant held at least 5% of the ordinary share capital of the company and at least 5% of the voting rights by virtue of a beneficial holding in respect of shares held on trust. The case involved a number of submissions on the evidence, and having to conduct examination in chief and re-examination of the appellant’s 3 witnesses.
Link here for decision: SEAMUS KAVANAGH v Revenue & Customs (Capital Gains Tax entrepreneurs’ relief) [2022] UKFTT 173 (TC) (31 May 2022) (bailii.org)
Fanning v HMRC [2022] STC 256 (Upper Tribunal). The legal issues concerned the availability of Stamp Duty Land Tax subsale relief and its application to an option granted in respect of land. See Court of Appeal above.
Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)
Shane de Silva v Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 275 (TCC) (Upper Tribunal) concerned an application for permission to notify a late appeal to HMRC, and whether the First-tier Tribunal had made an error of law in refusing permission, and the extent to which the FTT had engaged properly with the strength of the Appellant’s case in carrying out its balancing exercise. UT held the FTT did make an error of law in failing to follow the guidance in Martland and in failing to give reasons which properly supported its decision, but the FTT’s decision was nonetheless a correct one in the light of the Martland criteria applied correctly.
Link here for decision: 275.pdf (bailii.org)
Mark Mitchell v HMRC [2021] UKUT 250 (TCC) (Upper Tribunal) the issue concerned the extent of permissible disclosure of documents by HMRC relating to the tax and business affairs of one appellant (Mr. Mitchell) to another appellant (Mr. Bell) in respect of the validity of personal liability notices; and whether either appellant was a shadow direction under Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, paragraph 24. See Court of Appeal above.
Link here for decision: Mark Mitchell and Paul Bell v Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 250 (TCC) (8 October 2021) (bailii.org)
Bhaur & Others v IVM PCC & Others (Chancery Division) [2021] EWHC 2581 concerned the extent to which a transfer to an offshore trust (an EBT) could be set aside for mistake of law and/or fact. Defence to mistake claim / rectification in respect of employee benefit trusts.
Link here for decision: Bhaur & Ors v Equity First Trustees (Nevis) Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2581 (Ch) (28 September 2021) (bailii.org)
Kingsley Douglas v Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 163 (Upper Tribunal). Validity of VAT best judgment assessments, and whether the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) had erred in making factual findings beyond the agreed issues, whether the FTT had failed to take into account relevant evidence, whether the FTT made a finding not available to it on the evidence. Represented HMRC.
Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)
M&M Builders (Norfolk) Limited v HMRC [2021] UKUT 103 (Upper Tribunal). Annuity given as consideration for purchase of property, whether s.52 (annuity provisions) or s53 (sale involving a company) applied to determine taxable consideration; and whether s.52 limited SDLT or s.53 imposed market value consideration for SDLT purposes.
Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)
Mark Shaw (as nominated member of TAL CPT Land Development Partnership LLP) v Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 100 (Upper Tribunal): concerned a novel point regarding temporary disuse and the availability of Industrial Buildings Allowances (IBAs), which were designed to encourage capital investment in buildings. HMRC argued there was no entitlement to any IBAs because buildings could only be regarded as in temporary disuse if, following a period they were actually brought back into use (which the buildings in this case were not).
Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)
Hannah, R (On the Application Of) v The Taxation Disciplinary Board Ltd [2021] EWHC 1069 (Admin) (Administrative Court, High Court): whether the Chartered Institute of Taxation is a public body, and whether referral of a CIOT member to the Taxation Disciplinary Board was in breach of natural justice.
Hannah & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2021] UKUT 22 (Upper Tribunal) (SDLT – whether annuity sole consideration for house purchase, ss. 52, s.75A) [2019] UKFTT 342 (TC).
Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)
Mobey v Revenue and Customs [2021] UKFTT 122 (First-tier Tax Tribunal) the case concerned Stamp Duty Land Tax and the availability of Multiple Dwellings Relief for an annexe to a main building.
Link here for decision: TC08103.pdf (bailii.org)
Kevin McCabe v HMRC [2020] STC 2148 (Upper Tribunal) the point concerned the correct legal principles to be applied in an application for specific disclosure of documents in respect of information shared between HMRC and the Belgian tax authorities pursuant to inter-jurisdictional co-operation and confidentiality obligations under Article 25 (Mutual Agreement Procedure) of the UK-Belgian Double Taxation Agreement. I had to make detailed submissions on the case law relating to disclosure, and the nature of the test for relevance and how it should be determined in connection with the issues in dispute between the parties concerning the tax residence of Mr. McCabe, including the scope of any disclosure application where a party claims documents are confidential (including the scope and application of the decision in National Crime Agency v Abacha [2016]). The case is relevant to all the UK tax treaties (in excess of 100).
Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)
Development Securities (No.9) Ltd & Others v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 1705 (CA), [2019] STC 1424 (UT) (won on appeal from FTT, reversed in CA) (corporate tax residence / central management & control Jersey / UK / dual residence).
Mark Mitchell & Paul Bell [2021] UKUT 250, [2020] UKFTT 102 (TC) (First-tier Tax Tribunal). HMRC seeking to rely on documents confidential to one appeal in joined appeal concerning that appellant and another appellant – first appellant objecting – decision based on relevance of material – application allowed in part before FTT. See UT and Court of Appeal decisions above.
Link here for decision: TC07598.pdf (bailii.org)
MCX Dunlin (UK) Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2020] EWHC 11 (Ch) (13 January 2020) (whether repayments were Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax or PRT; represented HMRC)
Albert House Property Finance PCC Ltd & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2020] UKUT 373 and [2019] UKFTT 732 (TC) (3 December 2019) (whether SDLT appeals validly withdrawn)Newton & Anor v Revenue & Customs (SDLT – whether discovery – whether subsale relief applied) [2019] UKFTT 688 (TC) (12 November 2019) (subject to PTA)
Turners (Soham) Ltd v HMRC [2019] STI 959: computation of trading profits / application of statutory renewals allowance; whether trucks and trailers “tools”
High Court (Garnham J) and Court of Appeal (2019) (subject to reporting restrictions / Contempt of Court Act 1981)
Pulsin Ltd v HMRC [2019] STI 222 – represented HMRC, whether product an item of “confectionary” or a “cake” for VAT purposes.
Divisional Court (Irwin LJ and Garnham J) (2018) (subject to reporting restrictions / Contempt of Court Act 1981)
DAC Beachcroft v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 0502 (TC): Information notice, application of legal professional privilege, Information Notice: Resolution of Disputes as to Privileged Communications Regulations 2009
National Federation of Occupational Pensioners v HMRC [2018] STI 390: VAT / unincorporated associations / whether separate person for VAT
Frosh, Joyce, Goring-Thomas v HMRC [2017] STC 1941 (UT) (closure notices / effect of invitation to settle letters)
X v Y: defence to professional negligence claim against tax advisers
Travel Republic Limited v HMRC [2018] EWHC 3905 (Admin): VAT treatment of credit card fees / ancillary to principal supplies / Business Brief 18/06 / legitimate expectation
Omega LLPs v HMRC: represented HMRC in FtT / partnership tax appeal / stay application
Julian Hickey is an independent self-employed barrister registered with the Bar Standards Board of England (ref. no 33858) whose practice is governed by the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales which code can be found at www.barstandardsboard.org.uk; has full professional liability insurance provided by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited (ref BM 2930/078) (details of the world-wide cover are provided at www.barmutual.co.uk); and is registered for VAT (reg. no. 188 8940 36).
Unless otherwise specifically limited to a lesser figure, in addition to the Terms and Conditions specified in the chambers’ website, optional clauses 7(b) and 7(c) shall apply with the insertion of a figure of twenty million pounds (£20m) and optional clause 7(f) shall apply.
My main area of practice is in tax, although I have a wide-ranging knowledge of company, partnership, intellectual property, trusts and insolvency law. In my capacity as an authorised practising self-employed barrister, the work provided is in the form of legal opinion, advice and advocacy on a variety of tax related matters. This includes chancery or commercial cases with a particular tax aspect.
The following individuals, are invited to contact me directly for a quote for legal services on: 020 3150 0001 or via email: julian.hickey@exchequerchambers.com:
I or my clerk (tyroon@exchequerchambers.com) will provide you with a quote as soon as possible. I always aim to set out quotes clearly, but if you receive your quote and there is something you do not understand, please contact me.
My pricing model is an hourly rate and in some circumstances, I can agree a fixed fee. My fees are calculated by reference to the amount of time reasonably required to supply the services and a reasonable hourly rate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. For the purposes of determining the reasonable hourly rate, the circumstances of the case include: the complexity of the issues; the speed at which the services must be supplied; the expertise or specialist knowledge that the services require; and the value of the property, dispute or subject matter involved; liability level or the volume of work involved in a matter. In this regard, my fee range is £350+VAT per hour to £550+VAT. It may be possible to agree a fixed fee; however, this decision will be taken on a case-by-case basis and will involve an assessment of the above-mentioned factors.
My work on the Attorney General’s B Panel is at these rates: Attorney General’s civil panel counsel: practical information – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Timescales for a case may vary depending on factors such as my availability, the type and complexity of the case, the number of papers needing to be reviewed, the approach taken by the other side and the need for additional information or documents. The timescale will be discussed with a client at the outset and should anything happen to affect the timescale this will be communicated as soon as possible to the client.
If you are a member of the public, the Bar Standards Board’s Public Access Guidance for Lay Clients can be downloaded from the following link:
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/resources/public-access-guidance-for-lay-clients.html.
This will help you to understand how the Public Access scheme works and explains how you can use it to instruct me directly.
The BSB
Self-employed barristers are regulated by the Bar Standards Board. You can search the Barristers’ Register on the Bar Standards Board’s website:
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/search-a-barristers-record/the-barristers-register.html.
The BSB’s Barristers’ Register shows:
Alternatively, you can contact the Bar Standards Board on 020 7611 1444 to ask about this (or e-mail: ContactUs@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk).
Separate information is available on our website which provides information about:
The Data Protection Policy
The Data and Privacy Protection Notice
The complaints procedure
This procedure sets out any right you may have to complain to the Legal Ombudsman (“LeO” – the independent body which can help you if you have complained to your lawyer and are not happy with their response); How to complain to the LeO; and any time limits for making a complaint.
Here is the link to the decision data on the Legal Ombudsman website: https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/#ombudsman-decision-data
This data demonstrates that providers which received an ombudsman decision in the previous 12 months and in each case the data shows whether or not the provider was required to give the consumer a remedy: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/search-a-barristers-record/the-barristers-register; and lhttps://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/search-a-barristers-record/the-barristers-register
1. This is a privacy notice that describes how, why and for how long I will process or keep your personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’).
2. The GDPR governs how an individual’s personal data is used, and your rights in relation to that data.
3. I, Julian Hickey, have been instructed by you or your litigation friend (usually a parent), through your solicitor or agent, or via the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
4. It is necessary for me to process your personal data in order for me to provide you with legal services, for example:
5. Processing means anything done to data such as: recording, organising, adapting, altering, copying, consulting, transmitting, combining, erasing or storing it.
6.The processing for the purposes listed above will take place in accordance with either Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, depending on how you instructed me.
7. If you have instructed me on a direct access basis, or engaged a solicitor (or legal agent), to assist you in bringing or defending a claim then the processing is necessary to perform a contract to which you are a party (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR). To give effect to that contract (i.e. to bring a claim) it is necessary for me to process your personal data for litigation purposes.
8. If I am assisting you on a pro bono basis, it will be necessary for me to seek your consent to be able to represent you (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR). In this scenario, you will be sent a consent form.
Recipients of your data
9. I may also be required to share your data with others, depending on the nature of your case. This may include:
(i) Courts and other tribunals to whom documents are presented;
(ii) Your solicitors, or agent representing you, through whom I have been instructed;
(iii) Potential witnesses, experts and other persons involved in the case;
(iv) Solicitors, barristers, or other legal representatives;
(v) Ombudsman and regulatory authorities;
(vi) Education and examining bodies; and
(vii) Current, past or prospective employers.
Special Categories of Data
10. In some cases I will have been given your personal data that is within the ‘special categories’ of data described in GDPR Article 9(1). For example, personal data that reveals your race, ethnicity, sexual preferences, political or religious beliefs, trade union membership or health. There are also restrictions for processing information regarding criminal convictions.
11. This type of personal data will only be processed where it is necessary in order to represent you in your legal claim, or advise on the prospects of a legal claim.
Retention
12. I will retain your personal data for no longer than is necessary, and where it is possible, I will anonymise your data.
13. How long your personal data is kept will depend on a number of factors. The retention period will be reviewed when the service I am providing you with is complete. However in general, I am obliged by the Bar Code of Conduct to retain records of my cases, and by HM Revenue and Customs to retain records for 6 years.
14. Once your case has concluded and fees have been paid, I shall retain only the personal data necessary for the following purposes:
(i) The legal and professional obligation to retain information relating to my cases;
(ii) To check for any potential conflict of interests that may arise in the future when I am instructed on other cases;
(iii) For use in the defence of potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes;
(iv) To refer back to in future cases which raise similar legal, factual, or procedural issues.
15. The processing for the purposes listed in paragraph 14 (ii), (iii), and (iv) above, will take place in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. That is, for the purposes of legitimate interests that are not outweighed by your interests or fundamental rights and freedoms.
16. The processing for the purposes listed in paragraph 14(i) above, will take place in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. That is, the processing is necessary for me to comply with a legal obligation.
Your Rights
17. Where processing of your personal data was based on your consent (see paragraphs 6 and 8) you have the right to withdraw that consent at any time. This does not affect the lawfulness of the processing based on consent before its withdrawal.
18. Withdrawal of your consent to process such data will most likely mean that I am no longer able to provide you with the legal services you seek.
19. You may request confirmation that your personal data is being processed by me and details about the personal data, the source, the processing, the purposes of the processing, the recipients and the retention period.
20. You may request a copy of your personal data that is being processed by me. You may also request rectification (i.e. correction) where there are inaccuracies in the personal data.
21. You have the right to object, on grounds relating to your particular situation, at any time, to processing of your personal data in paragraph 14 of this privacy notice. Should you object, the processing will only continue where there are compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override your fundamental rights, freedoms and interests.
22. Where the processing or retention of your data is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims, it will not be possible to object.
23. You have the right to request that your personal data is erased where any of the following apply:
(i) The personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed;
(ii) You withdraw your consent where the basis of processing was based on consent and where there is no other ground for the processing;
(iii) Where your fundamental rights, freedoms and interests override the legitimate interests of processing in paragraph 14;
(iv) The personal data has been unlawfully processed; or
(v) The personal data have to be erased to comply with a legal obligation.
24. You have the right to request that your personal data is restricted from processing, so that it is simply stored, for the following reasons: as an alternative to deletion; so that it can be corrected; for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; to verify if a legitimate ground exists (paragraph 14).
25. Where it is necessary to correct your personal data, or you have requested the restriction or erasure of your personal data, I shall endeavour to contact the recipients of the personal data, unless this involves disproportionate effort.
Security
26. I take appropriate physical and technical procedures to safeguard your personal data to prevent it from being accidentally lost, used or accessed in an unauthorised way.
Complaints or Queries
27. If you have any questions regarding this privacy notice, or how I use your personal data please email me: mailto: julian.hicky@tbgbarrister.co.uk, or my clerks: clerking@thebarristergroup.co.uk telephone 01823 247 247.
28. I shall aim to respond as soon as possible, and within 30 days.
29. You have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) if you believe I have not handled your request in an appropriate manner. For information on contacting the ICO please go to: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
If you’d like to work with Julian Hickey or any of our other specialist barristers, send us your details and we’ll get back to you. Or you can contact our Senior Clerk Tyroon Win (based in London) on 0203 1500 001 or to start working together.
