Hammad Baig

Hammad Baig

Email: hammadbaig@15oldsquare.co.uk
Called: 2010, Middle Temple
Roll of Solicitors: 2013, Solicitor of the Higher Courts of England and Wales
Education: BVC (BPP University)
LLB Honours (Surrey)
BA Honours Business Studies (East London)
Scholarships: Socrates and Erasmus Scholar
View Hammad Baig's profile on LinkedIn
Direct Access Certified: Members of the public may instruct Hammad directly.

Practice

Hammad advises on all aspects of indirect tax law, particularly experienced in business taxation including international transactions, commercial litigation, international tax disputes and money laundering. Experienced at in-depth analysis of complex provisions in disputes with the HMRC. He benefits from his experience of managing a business which puts him in tune with the needs of the business clients.

He was called to bar at The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple in 2010, Hammad later qualified as a solicitor and has since returned to the bar. He has represented in matters involving, VAT fraud, Excise & Duty penalties, goods detention, seizures and condemnation proceedings, cash forfeiture, HMRC distraint / distress and matters involving classification, origin, customs valuation and other technical issues.

Hammad takes much pride in regularly offering legal advice to charities on a pro-bono basis and is presently a legal adviser to multiple charities.

Cases

Moreton Alarm Services (MAS) Ltd v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 700 (TC)
Acting for the Appellant, Customs Duty, Combined Nomenclature, classification, various pieces of equipment used in CCTV and video recording apparatus, appeal allowed in part.

Moreton Alarm Services (MAS) Ltd v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 192 (TC)
Acting for the Appellant, application by Respondent to amend statement of case and to adduce supplementary expert evidence – principles to be applied in determining late applications – applications refused.

S L Wines Ltd v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 575 (TC)
Acting for the Appellant, Money Laundering Regulations 2007, wholesaler of spirits in bond for cash, high value dealer whether in breach of the Regulations, whether maximum penalty imposed appropriate, because maximum penalty imposed on the basis that the breach was deliberate and it was not proved that it was.

NAS & Co Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 50 (TC)
Acting for the Appellant, excise duty, restoration, Section 14 to 16 of the Finance Act 1994, deemed confirmation of decision, calculation of 45 days period, deemed confirmation, reasons, Alzitrans considered, contents of document relevant to decision not disclosed by HMRC, whether decision therefore unreasonable, Section 3 (1) of the Human Rights Act and section 16 (4) of the Finance Act 94.

Dehn & Anor v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 633 (TC)
Acting for the Appellant – Appellant’s application for costs due to misleading statements by HMRC causing appeal to be submitted in error – tribunal’s jurisdiction on costs in standard route cases.