Was the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the break costs claimed by the Appellant fell outside the scope of the Respondent's duty of care as professional accountants?

Should Friday 3 June 2011 have been included or excluded for the purposes of limitation and, consequently, is the Appellants’ claim against the Respondents time-barred?

Whether section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should be interpreted to mean that the Appellant’s application for judicial review was made out of time.

The issues are, in the context of the Taxes Management Act 1970, section 29, in circumstances where Mr Tooth, in his self-assessment tax return for 2007-08, entered a loss he claimed was an employment loss as a partnership loss but informed HMRC that the loss was, in fact, an employment loss: (1) whether (and if so, how and when), on the facts of the case, HMRC made a "discovery" of an insufficiency of tax in Mr Tooth’s income tax self-assessment return for 2007-08; (2) whether a concept of "staleness" exists and, if so, how it applies in this case; (3) whether Mr Tooth’s return contained an "inaccuracy" (in that the loss claimed was entered as a partnership loss, rather than an employment loss; HMRC say that Mr Tooth’s explanation in his return that the loss was, in fact, an employment loss does not prevent the entry of the loss in the partnership box from being an "inaccuracy", whereas Mr Tooth says that his explanation that the loss claimed was an employment loss prevents there being an inaccuracy in his return at all) and (4) if so, was that inaccuracy "deliberate". It is common ground that the discovery assessment is valid if (and only if) the answer to each and every issue is determined in HMRC’s favour. Otherwise the discovery assessment is invalid.

Should the respondents still be liable to pay non-domestic rates ('NDR') for periods when they leased their unoccupied properties to special purpose vehicle companies ('SPVs') on the basis that: (1) the leases were prearranged tax avoidance schemes and the relevant statute should be interpreted accordingly; or (2) the SPVs can be disregarded by a piercing of the corporate veil.