Section 222 — Finance Act 2014: Representations about a notice
Text of the provision Official document
Representations about a notice 222 1 This section applies where an accelerated payment notice has been given under section 219 (and not withdrawn).
2 P has 90 days beginning with the day that notice is given to send written representations to HMRC—
a objecting to the notice on the grounds that Condition A, B or C in section 219 was not met, ... b objecting to the amount specified in the notice under section 220(2)(b) or section 221(2)(b) , or c objecting to the amount specified in the notice under section 220(2)(d) or section 221(2)(d).
3 HMRC must consider any representations made in accordance with subsection (2).
4 Having considered the representations, HMRC must—
a if representations were made under subsection (2)(a), determine whether—
i to confirm the accelerated payment notice (with or without amendment), or ii to withdraw the accelerated payment notice, ... b if representations were made under subsection (2)(b) (and the notice is not withdrawn under paragraph (a)), determine whether a different amount (or no amount) ought to have been specified under section 220(2)(b) or section 221(2)(b), and then—
i confirm the amount specified in the notice, ... ii amend the notice to specify a different amount , or iii remove from the notice the provision made under section 220(2)(b) or section 221(2)(b),
and c if representations were made under subsection (2)(c) (and the notice is not withdrawn under paragraph (a)), determine whether a different amount (or no amount) ought to have been specified under section 220(2)(d) or 221(2)(d), and then—
i confirm the amount specified in the notice, ii amend the notice to specify a different amount, or iii remove from the notice the provision made under section 220(2)(d) or section 221(2)(d), and notify P accordingly.
Official source: legislation.gov.uk
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from UK courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →