Hall vs HMRC decides that joint and several liability notices are criminal charges

The First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) has determined that a joint and several liability notice (“JSLN”) is a criminal charge which has changed the emphasis from the taxpayer to HMRC in terms of who has to prove prima facie validity of an argument.

This arose in the FTT’s decision in Hall v HMRC (2023), where the Tribunal found in favour of Mr Hall.

Mr Hall was a director of insolvent companies who had been issued with a Joint and Several Liability Notice totaling £1.68 million under the phoenixism provisions contained in paragraph three of Schedule thirteen to the Finance Act 2020.

The hearing was in relation to a strike out application by HMRC, as opposed to the substantive matter of the JSLN itself.

HMRC had sought to remove parts of the appellants grounds of appeal on the basis that they were public law issues, and the Tribunal therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear those. In the end the Tribunal refused the strike-out application.

However,…

“The decision does not set a precedent, and strictly involves a narrow point of construction relating to the Finance Act. However, its reasoning, if approved or adopted on appeal, may have significant ramifications for claimants wishing to rely on public law grounds before tribunal appeals more generally.”

Administrative Court Blog, 2026

But what does this all mean from a practical standpoint?

What does the Hall vs HMRC ruling mean?

At its core, the FTT decided that a Joint and Several Liability Notice issued under Schedule thirteen to the Finance Act 2020 amounts to a criminal charge for the purposes of Article six of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

That is a serious classification.

In practical terms, this shifts the procedural balance so that instead of the taxpayer having to disprove HMRC’s position from the outset, HMRC must establish a prima facie (on-the-face-of-it) case that the statutory conditions for issuing the notice are met.

Thus, the burden of justification becomes heavier and for directors facing allegations of phoenixism, this matters a lot.

A Joint and Several Liability Notice can make an individual personally responsible for company tax debts, often running into seven figures.

If the notice is treated as criminal in nature for ECHR purposes, enhanced safeguards apply and the Tribunal will expect clearer reasoning, proper evidential foundations and strict adherence to statutory requirements. Further, questions of proportionality and whether HMRC followed its own guidance can be considered – potentially broadening the basis of appeals.

The decision is not precedent and may not survive appeal to a higher court. It does not mean that Joint and Several Liability Notices are unlawful.

Nor does it remove HMRC’s power to issue them.

However, what it does mean is that the process and evidential standards surrounding them may be open to closer scrutiny.

What are the implications for tax advisory, investigations and laws?

For advisers like us, the decision reinforces the importance of challenging the procedural basis of HMRC action, not just the tax computation itself.

Where HMRC relies on anti-avoidance or phoenixism provisions to impose personal liability, the classification of the notice as criminal in character could widen the scope for public law arguments before the FTT.

In investigations (particularly those involving alleged tax avoidance or deliberate non-payment linked to insolvency), HMRC may need to be more precise in how it gathers and presents evidence going forward.

Directors and shadow directors facing personal liability will probably be subject to detailed factual analysis of their conduct and decision making in future cases.

Ultimately, the wider significance will depend on whether higher courts endorse the reasoning.

For more information on this subject, please contact our team.

You can get in touch with our friendly and experienced team on: 0203 675 8122 or email info@intaxltd.com.

inTAX is a specialist tax disputes firm. We deal with disclosures, investigations, and tax enquiries of all descriptions, including COP9, fraud investigations, VAT fraud, tax avoidance, let property disclosures and tribunal appeals. However, we don’t just deal with the serious end of tax investigations; we are also happy to handle smaller enquiries, disputes and problems that can be equally as worrying for our clients.