Revenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool: Admn 21 May 2014

The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the deceased for the purpose of investigating whether he had died as a result of an industrial disease. The Commissioner sought judicial review of the decision to issue those notices and asserted that the 2009 Act, which did not expressly bind the Crown, did not do so by necessary implication either. The Revenue said that compliance with the notice would pt them in breach of their own duties of confidentiality under the 2005 Act.
Held: Schedule 5 to the CJA 2009 binds the Crown by necessary implication. It follows that the Notices constituted an ‘order of court’ within s.18(2)(e), CRCA 2005, binding on HMRC. It follows further that the duty of confidentiality flowing from s.18(1), CRCA 2005 was displaced and HMRC was entitled to comply with the Notices.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Burnett J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1586 (Admin), [2015] 1 QB 481, [2014] 3 WLR 1660, [2014] WLR(D) 226

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, European Convention of Human Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dictum adoptedThe British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 5-Mar-1964
The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory . .

Cited by:

CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v Black CA 8-Mar-2016
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that the provisions prohibiting smoking in pubic places applied in prisons.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Taxes Management, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.526075

Incite Out Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Oct 2012

Appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009– whether lack of a specific warning or knowledge of the penalty regime was a reasonable excuse-no-whether penalty disproportionate or unfair -no-appeal dismissed and penalty confirmed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 680 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466213

Seacourt Developments Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Aug 2012

PAYE – NICs – CIS – assessments and determinations – best judgment – presumption of continuity – whether evidence to displace assessments and determinations
Penalties – PAYE and NICs – s 98A(4) TMA – whether taxpayer negligent in making incorrect returns – mitigation of penalties – Tribunal jurisdiction to increase penalties – s 100B(2)(b)

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 522 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466124

X v Staatssecretaris Van Financien: ECJ 18 Oct 2012

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Fiscal legislation – Obligation on the recipient of a service, established in the national territory, to withhold at source the wages tax on the remuneration due to a service provider established in another Member State – No such obligation in respect of a service provider established in the same Member State

Citations:

C-498/10, [2012] EUECJ C-498/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionX v Staatssecretaris Van Financien ECJ 21-Dec-2011
Opinion – Freedom to provide services – Obligation on the resident recipient of a service to withhold tax at source from remuneration if the service provider is resident in another Member State – Discrimination – Restriction – Grounds of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Taxes Management

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465024

Padmore v Inland Revenue Commissioners (No 2): ChD 8 Feb 2001

The taxpayer sought double taxation relief in respect of partnership profits earned in Jersey. Two sections appeared to be in direct contradiction. The earlier section had been superceded by the 1988 Act which was a consolidating Act. Consolidating legislation was intended to be read without reference to earlier legislation wherever possible save only in the case of ambiguity or obscure or absurd. The general rule in favour of double taxation agreements was here subordinated to a rule in 62.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Feb-2001, Times 21-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.84531

British Steel Plc v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Customs and Excise: CA 20 Dec 1996

The claimant company paid excise duty on hydrocarbon oil used in its blast furnaces, whilst consistently contending that it was entitled to relief under section 9(1) of that Act on the ground that the oil was not used as fuel. The Commissioners rejected that contention. The claimant brought an action against the Commissioners claiming restitution of the excise duty which it had paid on the basis that it qualified for relief, and that the Commissioners’ demands for payment of the duty had accordingly been unlawful.
Held: ‘So there are, in my opinion, two points for decision on this appeal. First, if relief from duty under section 9(1) was unlawfully refused, does it follow that the demands for duty under section 6 were unlawful? Second, if the demands for duty were unlawful, can a common law action for restitution be brought or is the payer restricted to such repayment remedy as may be available under section 9(4)?’ and ‘If the demands by the commissioners for excise duty to be paid on the hydrocarbon oil to be delivered to British Steel’s blast furnaces were unlawful demands, it would follow, in my opinion, from the decision of the House of Lords in [Woolwich] that whoever paid the duty would have a common law restitutionary right to repayment. . . In the present case, it is contended that the commissioners’ demand for excise duties was unlawful because the commissioners had made an error in deciding that the use of the oil in the British Steel blast furnaces was not a ‘qualifying use’ and, consequently, had wrongly refused to grant relief from duty under s 9(1). I have yet to examine whether that premise justifies a conclusion that the demands were unlawful; but, if it does, I can see no reason why the principle expressed by Lord Goff should not apply. . . An unlawful demand for duty must, in a sense, always be an ultra vires demand. Whether the demand is based on ultra vires regulations, or on a mistaken view of the legal effect of valid regulations, or on a mistaken view of the facts of the case, it will, as it seems to me, be bound to be a demand outside the taxing power conferred by the empowering legislation. If, for any of these reasons, a demand for tax is an unlawful demand, it seems to me to follow from the speeches of the majority in [Woolwich] that the taxpayer would, prima facie, become entitled, on making payment pursuant to the unlawful demand, to a common law restitutionary right to repayment. The empowering legislation in question, or other legislation, might remove the taxpayer’s common law right to repayment. That would depend on the construction of the Act or Acts in question. . . In the present case, if the demands for excise duty were unlawful, the payer would, in my judgment, have a prima facie common law right to repayment. . . I would not construe s 9(4) as removing that common law right. First, the common law right is not expressly removed. Second, s 9(4) does not purport to constitute a comprehensive statutory scheme for recovery of excise duty paid but not due. If duty were demanded and paid on oil that did not correspond to the description of ‘hydrocarbon oil’ in ss 1 and 2, s 9(4) would not enable recovery to be claimed. The common law claim would be the appropriate means of redress. If prospective relief under s 9(1) had been granted but, unlawfully, duty had none the less been demanded and, perforce, paid, s 9(4) would not apply. The common law claim for restitution would be the means of redress. Third, s 9(4) assumes, implicitly, that the excise duty has been paid pursuant to a lawful demand. It is expressed to deal with a situation in which prospective relief could have been given under s 9(1) but, for some reason or other, has not been given. Prima facie, if prospective relief has not been given under s 9(1), duty will have been properly demanded under s 6. . . . For these reasons, if British Steel has an arguable case that the demands for payment of excise duty were unlawful demands, I would not be willing to strike out its action on the ground that s 9(4) had removed the common law right of recovery.’
Millett LJ: ‘What the appellants have done is to seek to obtain retrospective relief by bringing private law proceedings in restitution to recover duty unlawfully demanded of them by a public authority. They can do this if (i) the demand for payment of the duty was unlawful and (ii) the private law remedy is not excluded by the statutory regime: see [Woolwich]. They have no difficulty with the second of these requirements: the statutory regime established by s 9(1) and (4) is not comprehensive; it is limited to persons who possessed the necessary approval at the relevant time, and the appellants did not. But while this enables the appellants to satisfy the second requirement, it creates an insuperable obstacle in the shape of the first. The commissioners’ demand for duty was not unlawful: they were authorised to demand the duty by the combined effect of s 6 of the 1979 Act and s 43(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Section 9(1) of the former Act authorised them to permit the release of oil from bond to an approved person, but they had no power to permit its release to the appellants, even if they were intending to put it to an intended use, unless they could show that they had been approved.’

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott VC, Saville LJ, Millett LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1272, [1997] 2 All ER 366

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedInland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141140

Stewart v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late Employer’s P35 End of Year Return – Appellant says had difficulty obtaining on-line activation PIN from HMRC – whether reasonable excuse shown for period of default – whether affected by delay in penalties imposed by HMRC – no

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 393 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462820

Heavy Woollen Branch Club and Institute Union Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

Penalty – Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late Employer’s P35 End of Year Return – Appellant thought Return had been filed on-line – further delays despite reminders – no reasonable excuse

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 391 (TC), [2012] UKFTT 391 (TC)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462802

Fawcett (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax Acts and Lancaster Farmers Auction Mart Company Limited: CA 4 Dec 1996

Auctioneers were required to report their trading returns to the Inland Revenue so as to show the income of the sellers.

Citations:

Times 27-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1093

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140960

Sutherland and Others v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes): CA 28 Feb 1994

One of several partners may appeal against the firm’s tax assessment without his partners’ approval.

Citations:

Ind Summary 28-Feb-1994, Gazette 13-Apr-1994, Times 04-Mar-1994

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 31 56

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSutherland and Others v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 17-May-1993
One partner may not appeal against an assessment to tax against the wishes of his or her partners. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89627

Atlantic Electronics Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 May 2011

CASE MANAGEMENT – Exclusion of evidence and admission of late evidence – Principles applicable – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 WLR 1038, HL applied – Need for balancing exercise

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 314 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At FTTTxHM Revenue and Customs v Atlantic Electronics Limited UTTC 26-Nov-2012
UTTC APPEAL AGAINST DIRECTION – First-tier Tribunal refusing to admit certain evidence – whether refusal a reasonable exercise of discretion – no -appeals allowed and decisions re-made – principles to be taken . .
At FTTTxHMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd UTTC 6-Feb-2012
UTTC COSTS – Transitional appeal – Appeal by HMRC against direction under Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009, Sch 3, para 7 for 1986 applying 2009 Rules to the proceedings – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Taxes Management

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443018

PVC Fascia Company v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2010

FTTTx Sub-contractors in the construction industry – Failure to make deductions from payments to sub-contractors – HMRC not satisfied payments taken into account on sub-contractors returns – determinations to pay amount not deducted – whether determinations in correct amount – amount partly reduced – insufficient evidence for further reduction – Appeal allowed in part – Regulation 13 of the Income tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 17 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Construction

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428201

Capital Air Services Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 12 Oct 2010

PROCEDURE – allocation to categories – Complex case – appeal from categorisation from decision of First-tier Tribunal categorising case as Standard – decision re-made by Upper Tribunal categorising case as Complex – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 373 (TCC), [2010] BVC 1574, [2011] STI 413, [2010] STC 2726

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428168

Revenue and Customs v BPP Holdings Ltd and Others: UTTC 3 Oct 2014

PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order

Judges:

Judge Bishopp

Citations:

[2014] UKUT 496 (TCC), [2014] BVC 544, [2015] STC 415

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBPP University College of Professional Studies v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Jul-2014
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. . .
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Cited by:

At UTTCBPP Holdings v Revenue and Customs CA 1-Mar-2016
HMRC had been debarred from further participation in the proceedings. BPP provided training courses, and the issue was as to the chargeability to VAT of books supplied between companies in the group. In the proceedings, HMRC repeatedly failed to . .
At UTTCBPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.539403

Fairburn and Others (T/A Cobbler) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Nov 2010

Partnership return, section 12AA Taxes Management Act 1970 (‘TMA’) – late filing penalty, section 93A TMA – filing paper return after both paper and electronic deadline – failure of HMRC to provide free software for electronic filing of partnership return – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 536 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426655

Gerdner (T/A Gardners Transport Co) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Oct 2010

FTTTx Application for leave to appeal out of time – VAT assessment made in 1980 – no reasonable grounds offered for late appeal and no reasonable prospect of appeal succeeding – Rule 5(3)(a) – no extension of time granted.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 488 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, VAT

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426617

Scofield v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Aug 2010

FTTTx Construction industry scheme — withdrawal of gross payment status — whether reasonable excuse — held no — whether HMRC have discretion to withdraw gross payment status – jurisdiction of Tribunal to review HMRC decision — direction for appeal to be relisted for further argument.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 377 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422364

Griffiths v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Aug 2010

FTTTx Late filing of self-assessment return – surcharges imposed under section 59C TMA 1970 for late payment of income tax. Late payment arose partly from error in tax code – whether reasonable excuse – no.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 371 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 59C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422353

Moore v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2010

FTTTx Discovery assessments and amendment to returns – Whether negligent in completing and filing incorrect returns – Yes – Appeal dismissed – s. 29 Taxes Management Act 1970 – Penalties – Whether correct amount – Appeal allowed in part – s 95 Taxes Management Act 1970

Judges:

John Brooks TJ

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 271 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422278

Smith v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 May 2010

INCOME TAX : Surcharge – Late payment of income tax – Whether HMRC gave an undertaking not to charge penalties – no – no reasonable excuse for defaults – section 59C Taxes Management Act 1970

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 221 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422248

Pinnacle Office Equipment Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 May 2010

VALUE ADDED TAX RETURN – failure to furnish return – misdeclaration – failure to pay tax due – reasonable excuse – reliance on any other person – reliance on employed accountant – accountant responsible for late payment and misdeclaration – whether accountant’s ill health reasonable excuse for default – Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 71 – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 211 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422239

Huntingwood Trading Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 21 Jan 2009

Application for judicial review of a decision by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dated 25th April 2007 to disallow 101 claims made by the claimant, Huntingwood Trading Limited, in respect of excise duty drawback totalling andpound;1,263,865. The two grounds on which the claimant sought judicial review were first that the commissioners had engendered in the claimant a legitimate expectation that a certain course of action would be followed in relation to the making and paying of drawback claims; and that it is unfair and an abuse of power for the Commissioners to frustrate that legitimate expectation by refusing to make the payments.

Judges:

Stadlen J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 290 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420984

Atec Associates Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Jul 2009

FTTTx PROCEDURE – Application to reinstate – Earlier Direction dismissing appeal given under Old Rules in absence of Applicant or any representative – Subsequent hearing under Old Rules to determine whether earlier Direction should be set aside – No attendance by Applicant – Earlier Direction remained in being – Further Application to reinstate made after coming into force of New Rules – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction – No – Application dismissed – ‘Old’ Trib Rules r.26(3) – SI 2009 No.56 (‘New’ Trib Rules) r.38.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 178 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408999

Mutch v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Jul 2009

FTTTx GROSS PAYMENT STATUS – Compliance test – Cancellation – Carpentry Business hit by drop in orders -Insufficient cash to pay tax liabilities on due dates – Whether reasonable excuse – Yes – Appeal allowed – Finance Act 2004 Schedule 11 para 4 (4).

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 288 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409008

Cameron v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Mar 2010

FTTTx Gift Aid – section 98 FA 2002 – election to carry back to previous year -election to be made on or before taxpayer delivers return under section 8 – election made in an amendment to a return- whether made in time.
Held: no.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 104 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408952

Bruns (T/A TK Fabrications) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2010

FTTTx CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – Cancellation of registration for gross payment – whether compliance failure of which account could be taken in cancelling registration – held no – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for compliance failure – held yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 58 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408916

Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another: CA 2 Feb 2010

The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could re-open the assessments, but the taxpayer was able to set off the expense as a capital allowance.

Judges:

Arden, Scott Baker and Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 32, [2010] STC 809, [2010] BTC 154, [2010] STI 435

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCITTower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs SCIT 19-Jul-2007
SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional . .
Appeal fromTower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Oct-2008
The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the . .

Cited by:

At CARevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396485

Society of Industrial Management System v Belgian State: ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ Opinion – Direct Taxation – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital tax treatment of an unusual or gratuitous advantage granted by a resident company to a company having its seat in another Member State in respect of which the first company is in links interdependence – Preservation of a balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States fight against abusive practices

Citations:

C-311/08, [2009] EUECJ C-311/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

OpinionSociety of Industrial Management System v Belgian State ECJ 21-Jan-2010
ECJ Freedom of establishment Free movement of capital Direct taxation Income tax legislation ‘ Determination of the taxable income of companies ‘ Companies having a relationship of interdependence ‘ Unusual or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Taxes Management

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374770

Touch Logistics v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Mar 2009

FTTTx Default surcharge/ poor performance of financial controller/late payment by 2 substantial customers/clawback by bank on factored payments/ overdraft facility reduced/concession by Respondents at hearing for rescheduling of 2 Vat payments – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 33 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Taxes Management

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373592

Deadman Confidential Partnership v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Apr 2009

FTTTx PENALTY DETERMINATION – Failure to comply with notice under section 20 to produce bank statements – s98(1)(b)(i) and s100C TMA 1970 – andpound;300 penalty determined
NOTICE UNDER s19A TMA 1970 – Whether reasonable to have made it – Yes – Appeal dismissed
CLOSURE APPLICATION – Enquiry – Conclusion dependent on outstanding notices under s19A TMA 1970 – Application dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 76 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373603

Regina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill: CACD 31 Jul 2003

The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. At such interview admissions are accepted as a basis for settling civil liabiity, but expressly excluding compromise of any criminal action.
Held: The IR statement that the Code of Practice did not apply at this stage was incorrect. Plainly the officers suspected serious crime, and any practice allowing them to obtain evidence without first cautioning the defendant was wrong. However the admission of the evidence would not have had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to have admitted it. The judge had adequately directed the jury as to the defendants domicile.

Judges:

Mr Justice Astill Lord Justice Clarke The Common Serjeant

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 2256, Times 29-Aug-2003, Gazette 02-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 105, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code C s66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Barker CCA 1941
In the course of investigating the defendant for tax faud, he was interviewed by the Inland Revenue. Relying upon a standard statement by the revenue, the appellant produced two ledgers which had been fraudulently prepared in order to induce the . .
CitedRegina v Allen HL 11-Oct-2001
The defendant appealed against a finding that he had concealed an emolument, namely accommodation. He said that, as a shadow director of the company within the extended meaning of that phrase under the Act, the deeming provisions under Income Tax . .
CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
CitedAllen v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Sep-2002
The court rejected as inadmissible an application challenging admissibility of evidence obtained from him by the Revenue either by compulsion or inducement.
Held: ‘The Court notes that in this case the applicant does not complain that the . .
CitedRegina v Okafor CACD 10-Nov-1993
The appellant, a Nigerian national, arrived at Gatwick Airport from Nigeria with a single item of luggage, namely a suit carrier. He was asked a number of questions, in particular whether he had packed the luggage himself and whether everything in . .
CitedRegina v Absolam CACD 1990
A was arrested. He was already on bail for possession of cannabis, and in the hope finding further evidence he was asked to empty his pockets, ‘and put the drugs on the table’ he did so and admitted selling drugs.
Held: The procedure should . .
CitedRegina v Grannell CACD 1990
The complainat had seen the burglar/defendant, noted his car number and later identified the car to the police. He identified the defendant from a group identification, but the codes of practice were not followed.
Held: Though the Codes had . .
CitedRegina v Delaney CACD 11-Jan-1990
Delaney was 18 and with a low IQ. On first interview for indecent assault, he denied the offence, but later came to admit it. The police admitted first minimising the seriousness of the offence, but he alleged greater pressure, resulting in a later . .
CitedRegina v Quinn CACD 15-Mar-1994
Police must follow the published Code of Practice, when conducting identity parades, and may not substitute their own. If the evidence is allowed in despite the breach, the judge should explain the significance of the breach to the jury, as it may . .
CitedHan and Yau t/a Murdishaw Supper Bar, and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 3-Jul-2001
The applicant claimed that proceedings under which he had been accused of fraud in dishonestly evading VAT liability were in reality criminal proceedings and that the minimum standards of a fair trial applied.
Held: The characterisation under . .
CitedHenderson v Henderson 1967
The court considered what was required to establish a domicile at law: ‘First, clear evidence is required to establish a change of domicile. In particular, to displace the domicile of origin in favour of the domicile of choice, the standard of proof . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Taxes Management

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.184914

Griffin v Citibank Investments Ltd: ChD 14 Nov 2000

Where there existed properly constituted documents recording a contract, the court could not go behind them to discover the real transaction. The rules in Ramsay is not a special set of principles restricted to issues in determining the legal effect for taxation of a series of transactions, but rather part of general rules. In this case no steps had been introduced into the transaction whose only purpose was to reduce tax liability, and they could not be seen as one composite whole.

Citations:

Times 14-Nov-2000, Gazette 23-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Contract

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.81036

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd: HL 14 Mar 1994

The applicant had obtained what it thought to be clearance from the Revenue for a complex scheme, whose effectiveness depended on whether investors would qualify for capital allowances. The Inspector initially gave a favourable assurance, but that was subsequently withdrawn.
Held: The taxpayer’s application failed. A tax clearance certificate was properly withdrawn for a failure by the taxpayer to make a full disclosure.
Lord Jauncey refered to Lord Templemen’s dicta in the Preston case and said: ‘I take from these passages (i) that the court may properly review a decision of the Revenue to exercise it’s statutory powers if the decision is so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power although the court has a discretion to refuse relief even if such decision does not savour of such abuse…’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: ‘It is now established that, in certain circumstances, it is an abuse of power for the Revenue to seek to extract tax contrary to an advance clearance given by the Revenue. In such circumstances, the taxpayers can by way of judicial review apply for an order preventing the Revenue from seeking to enforce the tax legislation in a sense contrary to the assurance given (see Preston -v- IRC [1985] AC 835). But the courts can only restrain the Revenue from carrying out their duties to enforce taxation obligations imposed by legislation where the assurances given by the Revenue make it unfair to contend for a different tax consequence, as a result of which unfairness the exercise of their statutory powers by the Revenue would constitute an abuse of power (see [1985] AC 835 at 864 per Lord Templeman). It is further established that if the taxpayer, in seeking advance clearance, has not made a full disclosure of the relevant circumstances, the Revenue are not acting unfairly, and therefore are not abusing their powers, if they go back on an advance clearance which they have only given in ignorance of the relevant circumstances (see [1985] AC 835 at 867 per Lord Templeman, and R -v- IRC, ex p MFK Underwriting Agencies Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545’.
Lord Griffiths: ‘In this case the local tax Inspector made a bad mistake. He gave clearance to a scheme proposed by Matrix Securities which Lord Templeman has exposed as a manifestly impermissible tax avoidance scheme. Although the letter of 15 July 1993 in which Matrix put the scheme to the Inspector was not expressed as clearly as it might have been, I have no doubt that if the Inspector had read it carefully he would have realised either that it was a tax avoidance scheme or at the very least it should be considered by the special list division of the Inland Revenue before clear answer was given. In either case he should not have given his clearance.
. . . I wish however to add a word of a more general nature to the issue that has arisen in the appeal. It is part of the human condition that people will make mistakes, but they must not be held to mistaken decisions if the mistake is discovered in time to take effective remedial action. In the present case the specialist unit discovered the mistake made by their tax Inspector and gave immediate notice to Matrix that they could not approve the scheme before any money had been invested by the public in the scheme. In these circumstances even if the Inspector had been the right person to submit the secheme to in the first instance, and even if the scheme had been clearly set out it would be wholly wrong to hold the Revenue to the mistaken clearance and allow the scheme to go ahead at a cost of some 38 million pounds of lost Revenue to the national exchequer. It is one thing to hold the Revenue to a clearance that has been acted upon in good faith, but quite another to permit the correction of an error before it has been acted upon.
If however Matrix had been entitled to rely on the clearance given by the Inspector and had spent money in promoting the scheme before the clearance was withdrawn, then it seems to me that fairness demands that Matrix should be reimbursed for this out of pocket expense and it could be regarded as an abuse of power for the Revenue to refuse to do so. This point does not have to be decided in this appeal but I mention it because this aspect of the argument only surfaced towards the end of the hearing and the Revenue strenuously resisted any liability to compensate Matrix in such circumstances.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey, Lord Griffiths

Citations:

Ind Summary 14-Mar-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 334, [1994] STC 272

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd CA 10-Nov-1993
The withdrawal of a scheme approval after non-disclosure by the taxpayer was not an abuse of power by the Commissioners. . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston HL 1984
Duty of Fairness to taxpayer – Written Assurance
The applicant was assured by the Inland Revenue that it would not raise further inquiries on certain tax affairs if he agreed to forgo interest relief which he had claimed and to pay a certain sum in capital gains tax.
Held: Where the . .
At First InstanceRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd QBD 22-Oct-1993
A tax clearance was properly withdrawn because of non-disclosure. There was no abuse by the Revenue. . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Beatrix Potter School ex parte Kanner Admn 20-Dec-1996
The applicant’s child had been offered a place by the respondent. The offer was withdrawn.
Held: The school when deciding was entitled to look to the need for efficiency in education. On appeal, the committee may go against that need. The . .
CitedChurchhouse, Regina (on the Application of) v Inland Revenue Admn 4-Apr-2003
The taxpayer was a revenue informer one whose trade is described by Coke as ‘viperous vermin [who] under the reverend mantle of law and justice instituted for protection of the innocent, and the good of the Commonwealth, did vexe and depauperize the . .
CitedABC Ltd v Inspector of Taxes SCIT 20-Jul-2001
SCIT CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – Purchase by a UK company of plant and machinery from XYZ, a non-UK corporation – Lease back by the company to XYZ – Sublease by XYZ to a subsidiary UK company – Various security . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86935

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd: QBD 22 Oct 1993

A tax clearance was properly withdrawn because of non-disclosure. There was no abuse by the Revenue.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd CA 10-Nov-1993
The withdrawal of a scheme approval after non-disclosure by the taxpayer was not an abuse of power by the Commissioners. . .
At First InstanceRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd HL 14-Mar-1994
The applicant had obtained what it thought to be clearance from the Revenue for a complex scheme, whose effectiveness depended on whether investors would qualify for capital allowances. The Inspector initially gave a favourable assurance, but that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86937

Sanderson v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 21 Jan 2016

Judges:

Patten, Briggs, Simon LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 19, [2016] STI 237, [2016] BTC 3, [2016] 4 WLR 67, [2016] WLR(D) 49, [2016] STC 638, [2016] 3 All ER 203

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.559158

Tower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 13 Oct 2008

The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the re-opening of the assessments was allowed. Henderson J set out also why he would have allowed the taxpayer’s appeal as to the claimaing of the allowance.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2387 (Ch), [2008] BTC 805, [2008] STI 2249, [2008] STC 3366

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromTower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs SCIT 19-Jul-2007
SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another CA 2-Feb-2010
The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could . .
At ChDRevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276838

Tower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 19 Jul 2007

SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional contract – whether the expenditure paid 10 months after the date of the contract was still paid under a contract that required payment within a four month period, or whether the eventual payment was under a varied contract – whether one of the Appellants had commenced trading before the end of the tax year 2003/2004 – whether the value of the software was broadly in line with the capital expenditure ostensibly given by the LLPs in which the Appellants were members – how to analyse the transaction for capital allowance purposes if the value of the acquired asset was materially lower than the price paid initially for the asset with the support of non-recourse loans – Appeal by LLP1 dismissed and appeal by LLP2 dismissed in part.

Judges:

Mr Howard Nowlan

Citations:

[2007] UKSPC SPC00619, [2008] STC (SCD) 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromTower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Oct-2008
The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the . .
At SCITRevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another CA 2-Feb-2010
The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could . .
At SCITRevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259275

Morris and Another v Revenue and Customs: ChD 23 May 2007

The court heard an appeal against a preliminary decision of the Special Commissioners about two issues of principle which affect forthcoming appeals against assessments to self-assessments made by the Respondent Commissioners against them. The two issues are: (a) whether the time limit imposed by section 34 of the 1970 Act (‘TMA’) applies to closure notices under section 28A(2) TMA so as to amend the taxpayers’ returns containing the self-assessment of their liability to CGT for the year 1997/98; and (b) whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) as applied by the Human Rights Act 1998 to the taxpayers’ appeals against the penalty determinations under s.95 TMA alters the burden of proof in relation to the appeals against the other assessments and notices which are listed for hearing at the same time but do not themselves involve any element of penalty.

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1181 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 28A 34 95, European Convention on Human Right 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252515

Regina v R (Inland Revenue: Tax Evasion): FD 1 Jul 1998

The court declined to order the return by the Inland Revenue of documents disclosed to it regarding a husband’s failure to disclose income, where the disclosure was recent and tax payable could affected the order. The wife’s wrongful behaviour in maing the disclosure was to be reflected in court order.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Jul-1998, [1998] 1 FLR 922

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChurchhouse, Regina (on the Application of) v Inland Revenue Admn 4-Apr-2003
The taxpayer was a revenue informer one whose trade is described by Coke as ‘viperous vermin [who] under the reverend mantle of law and justice instituted for protection of the innocent, and the good of the Commonwealth, did vexe and depauperize the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.88590

Slater Ltd and others v Beacontree Commissioners for the General Purposes of Income Tax: CA 20 Feb 2002

Application for leave to appal against penalties imposed for failing to complay with notices requiring the production of documents to the Commissioners.

Judges:

Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 259

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216855

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Laird Group Plc: ChD 13 Mar 2001

It was difficult to reconcile different decisions of the higher courts. Nevertheless, the declaration and payment of a dividend which did not involve any transaction in securities, or alteration of rights attaching to securities, was not itself a dealing in securities. The arrangement involved the declaration of abnormally large dividends in purchasing another company so as to create franked income which it could then set off against its own liability to tax at tax rates applicable to its group. If a payment operated to extinguish a security, it might become such a transaction, but in this case it had not.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 706

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82347

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Oce Van Der Bgrinton Nv: ChD 21 Nov 2000

The question of how to balance double taxation provisions when considering deduction of tax at source under such an agreement with a member from dividends paid by a UK company to its Dutch parent is one to be settled by the European court. This was a question of whether this constituted a ‘withholding tax’ forbidden by the Directive.

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-2000

Statutes:

UK/Netherlands Double Taxation Agreement

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European, Taxes Management

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82354

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Amerada Hess Ltd: ChD 20 Mar 2001

An oil exploration company was able to set off against the charge to Petroleum Revenue Tax on its profits from the exploitation of an oilfield, the cost of abortive explorations outside the field but less than five kilometers away. The transitional provisions following the abandonment of the tax on new oilfields did not affect this issue.

Citations:

Times 20-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Oil Taxation Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82339

In re Sutherland, dec’d; Winter v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 1963

The concept of a contingent liability was considered.
Held: In Scots law, a contingent liability is a liability which, by reason of something done by the person bound, may or may not arise depending on the happening of a future event.
Lord Guest said: ‘The purpose of section 7(5) . . is to value the property. ‘It does not’ as Lord Evershed said ‘require you to assume that the sale . . has occurred.’ It simply prescribes, as the criterion for value, price in the open market as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, which is a familiar basis for valuation.’
He set out the test for a contingent liability as follows: ‘Contingent liabilities must . . be something different from future liabilities which are binding on the company, but are not payable until a future date. I should define a contingency as an event which may or may not occur and a contingent liability as a liability which depends for its existence upon an event which may or may not happen.’
A contingent obligation must be distinguished from a mere spes obligationis, or the hope or expectancy of an obligation yet to emerge. Lord Reid said: ‘. . if I see a watch in a shop window and think of buying it, I am not under a contingent liability to pay the price: similarly, if an Act says I must pay tax if I trade and make a profit, I am not before I begin trading under a contingent liability to pay tax in the event of my starting trading. In neither case have I committed myself to anything. But if I agree by contract to accept allowances on the footing that I will pay a sum if I later sell something above a certain price I have committed myself and I come under a contingent liability to pay in that event.’

Judges:

Lord Guest, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1963] AC 235

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedGrays Timber Products Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 3-Feb-2010
An assessment to income tax had been raised after the employee resold shares in the company issued through the employees’ share scheme at a price which the Revenue said was above the share value. The company appealed against a finding that tax was . .
HelpfulIn re SBA Properties Ltd ChD 1967
A court action had been raised in the name of a company without authority, giving rise to a possible liability in expenses to the defendants. One of the defendants claimed that, in the event that the company’s liquidator ratified the action, that . .
AppliedIn re T and N Ltd and Others (No 3) ChD 16-Jun-2006
The court considered the application of ‘the bankruptcy template of section 382 to the rules governing the winding up of companies’.
Held: The phrase ‘obligation incurred’ in Rule 13.2(1)(b) was inapt to describe a common law duty of care in . .
CitedIn re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.396610

Argosy Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners: PC 8 Feb 1971

(Guyana) The word ‘best’ when used to refer to the judgment of a tax officer making an assessment of tax due, rather than implying a higher than normal standard, is a recognition that the result may necessarily involve an element of guesswork. It means simply ‘to the best of (their) judgment on the information available’

Judges:

Lord Donovan

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 514, [1971] UKPC 5, [1971] TR 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

CitedPegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise CA 27-Jul-2004
The taxpayer complained that the assessment imposed by the Commissioners was wholly unreasonable, and void. The tribunal had found the assessment wholly unreasonable, but the High Court had allowed the Commissioners’ appeal.
Held: There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200234

James Murray King v Annie Marie Walden (HM Inspector of Taxes): ChD 12 Jun 2001

A decision to impose a penalty on a taxpayer, involved a charge of a criminal nature, for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention. It was necessary, therefore, to proceed with such a matter quickly. Even so, in the imposition of such penalties, there was no point upon which the burden of proof did not lay on the Crown, and the taxpayer had had opportunity at each stage to have his say. In this case, the matter had taken some five years. This was only just acceptable, and the Revenue should look at some way of fast tracking appeals in such matters.

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 419, [2001] STC 822

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights art 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKing v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
The claimant had been subject to tax penalty proceedings. They continued for more than 14 years.
Held: The length of the proceedings exceeded the time properly to be allowed, and infringed his right to a fair trial. Though the taxpayer himself . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.82788

Revenue and Customs v Hill (Tax): UTTC 14 Feb 2018

PROCEDURE – refusal of application by HMRC to strike out appeals against assessments to excise duty and penalty – whether FTT erred in law in refusing application to strike out appeal against duty assessment – appeal allowed – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 10(1)(b) – whether FTT erred in law in awarding costs against HMRC for acting unreasonably in bringing proceedings – appeal allowed in part – use of striking out in relation to penalty appeals

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 45 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.604788

Carstairs (Inspector of Taxes) v Sykes: ChD 20 Dec 2000

The taxpayer had claimed tax relief for certain periods (approximately six years) when he was living abroad. The Crown appealed a decision of the commissioners discharging their assessment to tax.
Held: There is a distinction in law between the residence abroad and absence for the purposes of tax relief. The taxpayer can be resident, but absent abroad. For the purposes of the provisions of schedule E tax deductions on foreign earnings, the taxpayer should not be free to include periods when he was neither resident, nor ordinarily resident, when aggregating the qualifying period of absence. Whether someone was at any particular moment absent from the UK could only be answered in the context of the question. In this context that, must require the court to give to meaning of a qualifying period absence in the sense of not being physically present in the place of residence.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 193(1) Sch E

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78919

Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 19 Oct 2016

The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been rejected at first instance and at the court of appeal.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal succeeded. The approach should have been within the law of confidence. The information provided was confidential. The schemes at issue were of the past, and disclosure could not assist their prevention, and ‘a general desire to foster good relations with the media or to publicise HMRC’s views about elaborate tax avoidance schemes cannot possibly justify a senior or any other official of HMRC discussing the affairs of individual tax payers with journalists.’
‘ It is a cardinal error to suppose that the public law remedies and principles associated with judicial review of the exercise of administrative power, developed by the common law from the ancient prerogative writs, occupy the entire field whenever the party whose conduct is under challenge holds a public position. It is important to emphasise that public bodies are not immune from the ordinary application of the common law, including in this case the law of confidentiality. The common law is multi-faceted and remains the bedrock of the English legal system.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 54, [2017] 1 All ER 95, [2016] BTC 41, [2016] WLR(D) 540, [2016] STC 2306, [2016] 1 WLR 4164, [2016] STI 2746, UKSC 2015/0082

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At CAIngenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs CA 4-Mar-2015
The claimant sought judicial review of the disclosure, off the record by an officer of the defendant to a journalist, of confidential materials as to their investigation of his involvement in a film investment scheme. The claim had been rejected by . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston HL 1984
Duty of Fairness to taxpayer – Written Assurance
The applicant was assured by the Inland Revenue that it would not raise further inquiries on certain tax affairs if he agreed to forgo interest relief which he had claimed and to pay a certain sum in capital gains tax.
Held: Where the . .
CitedMarcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1992
A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case.
CitedRe Arrows Ltd No 4 HL 1995
The Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal from the judge who had directed that the transcripts of examinations of a director of an insolvent company under section 236 on the Director of the Serious Fraud Office undertaking that the transcripts would . .
Ar First InstanceIngenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 25-Oct-2013
Application for judicial review of a decision of the Defendants acting by one of their most senior officials to disclose information relating to the claimants in an ‘off the record’ briefing with two journalists.
Held: The request for judicial . .
CitedW v Egdell CA 1990
The plaintiff was detained in a secure mental hospital, under a hospital order coupled with a restriction order, after pleading guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The defendant, a consultant psychiatrist, was engaged . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedMcKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
CitedThe Public Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 13-Jul-2016
Proposed changes to the Legal Aid regulations were challenged as being invalid, for being discriminatory. If regulations are not authorised under statute, they will be invalid, even if they have been approved by resolutions of both Houses under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Information, Intellectual Property, Taxes Management, Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.570160

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Goldblatt: 1972

In a winding up case, the Commissioners can if necessary proceed against a receiver for misfeasance.

Citations:

[1972] Ch 498

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Insolvency, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.268780

Ransom v Higgs: 1973

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1974] 50 Tax Cas 1, [1973] I WLR 1187

Cited by:

CitedPaul Alexander Clark (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) v The Trustees of The British Telecom Pension Scheme and Others ChD 14-Oct-1998
The question was whether sub-underwriting commissions received by the Trustees are chargeable to tax under Case I of Schedule D and whether they are also liable to the additional rate of tax applicable to trusts. The investment managers appointed to . .
At First InstanceRansom (Inspector of Taxes) v Higgs, etc HL 13-Nov-1974
A company had devised two elaborate schemes with a view to avoiding income tax. Lord Wilberforce discussed the definition of ‘trade’: ‘`Trade’ cannot be precisely defined, but certain characteristics can be identified which trade normally has. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183489

Arnold (Inspector of Taxes) v G Con Ltd: ChD 4 Mar 2005

The revenue appealed against an order by the general commissioners to grant to the taxpayer, a construction industry subcontractor, a fresh exemption certficate where he had been consistently late in submitting tax and NI payments of several thousand pounds.
Held: The determination was incorrect as a matter of law. The breaches could not be described as minor or technical so as to alow the commissioners to make the order they had.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2005

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 565(4)

Citing:

CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromArnold (Inspector of Taxes) v G Con Ltd CA 12-May-2006
The tax payer company had failed to send in pay as you earn and NI returns for three years. The commissioners had found this to be only a minor failure and that the company was entitled to an exemption certificate under the construction industry . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224049

Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 22 Jul 2002

The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax avoidance scheme. However, here the company already owned and operated the pipeline, and continued to do so after the arrangement. It owed the money before, and still owed it afterwards. The issue was whether the company had incurred the expenditure in provision of the pipeline, and practitioners should be careful not to lose themselves in the technical minutiae of the documentation. This was merely financial engineering, and did not qualify: ‘If corporation tax rates changed, the head lease rent payable to BMBF would change but the sublease rent payable by BGE (UK) would remain the same. If I have understood correctly how it would work, if the head lease rent went up BGE (UK) would still pay the full amount of the sublease rent to BMBF, and the balance of the (now) increased head lease rent would be paid by BGE to BMBF; if the head lease rent went down BGE (UK) would pay part of the sublease rent to BMBF (that part being equal to the (now) reduced head lease rent) and would pay the balance of the sublease rent to BGE.’

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

Times 26-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC Ch 1525, [2003] STC 66

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
CitedMcNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd CA 26-Oct-1998
Cross loans were made between an investment company and pension schemes. The overall effect was to create payments which could be set off against Corporation Tax. They were not a pre-ordained series of transactions where the underlying loans were . .

Cited by:

Awaiting AppealBMBF (No 24) Limited v the Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 6-Nov-2003
The taxpayer, a non-resident, operated a sale and lease back scheme of machinery to be used in its business within the UK. There had been a chain of leases.
Held: The court had first to identify the ‘relevant lease’. It was the head lease . .
Appeal fromBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Dec-2002
The taxpayer entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of a gas pipeline, and sought to set off the costs as a capital allowance.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded: ‘There is nothing in the statute to suggest that ‘up-front . .
At first instanceBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.174737

The Commissioners of Customs And Excise v Bassimeh: CA 20 Nov 1996

The respondent had operated a restaurant through a limited company. The commissioners issued notices of assessments and penalties against the company, now in liquidation, and the defendant, on the basis that the company had consistently under-reported its takings. The commissioners appealed a decision setting aside the notices. The argument was as to whether notices had to be issued for the separate quarters. Because the revenue could calculate the penalty as equivalent to the amount under declared, no separate calculation need be made, even though, in this case, no penalty was recoverable for part of the period.

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 999

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.140866

McEwan v Martin (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 20 Jan 2005

The tax inspector had sought to make an assessment outside the six year period, saying that the accounts had been prepared negligently. The taxpayer had claimed roll-over relief.
Held: The fact that the inspector had relied on professionally drawn accounts without investigating them further at the time was not a reason to disallow a reopening of the accounts. The inspector had been entitled to rely upon the accounts at the time. They did not cease to have been prepared negligently only because the tax inspector had accepted them.

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-2005

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.228427

Khan and another v First East Brixton General Commissioners and Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1986

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1986] STC 331

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStockler v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 22-Sep-2009
The taxpayer appealed against a decision confirming the Commissioners’ power to impose a penalty on him. It was said that his solicitors’ firm had negligently understated its profits. A settlement was proposed allowing a withdrawal of the return, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.375139

Trautwein v Federal Commissioner of Taxation: 9 Sep 1936

(High Court of Australia) Latham CJ considered how the Inland Revenue might make an assessment of a taxpayer’s income and said: ‘In the absence of some record in the mind or in the books of the taxpayer, it would often be quite impossible to make a correct assessment. The assessment would necessarily be a guess to some extent and almost certainly inaccurate in fact. There is every reason to assume that the legislature did not intend to confer upon a potential taxpayer the valuable privilege of disqualifying himself in that capacity by the simple and relatively unskilled method of losing either his memory or his books.
The application of section 39 is not, in my opinion, excluded as soon as it is shown that an element in the assessment is a guess and that it is therefore very probably wrong. It is prima facie right – and remains right until the appellant shows that it is wrong. If it were necessary to decide the point I would, as at present advised, be prepared to hold that the taxpayer must ‘at least as a general rule’ go further and show not only negatively that the assessment is wrong, but also positively what correction should be made in order to make it right or more nearly right. I say ‘as a general rule’ because, conceivably, there might be a case where it appeared that the assessment had been made upon no intelligible basis even as an approximation, and the court would then set aside the assessment and remit it to the commissioner for further consideration.’

Judges:

Latham CJ, Starke, Dixon and Evatt JJ.

Citations:

[1936] 56 CLR 63, [1936] HCA 77

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedBi-Flex Caribbean Ltd v Board of Inland Revenue PC 1990
The general burden falls upon a tax payer to provide the information to allow a tax assessment to be made: ‘The element of guess-work and the almost unavoidable inaccuracy in a properly made best of judgment assessment, as the cases have . .
CitedMomin and others v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 15-Jun-2007
The appellants challenged an assessment to income tax, saying that they had not been supported by a bona fide discovery of any loss of tax, and was otherwise unsupported by evidence.
Held: ‘The appellants have over a period of many years . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.267648

S v S (Inland Revenue: Tax Evasion): FD 1997

Disclosure of Ancillary Relief Papers to HMRC

Wilson J considered disclosure of materials filed in the course of matrimonial proceedings to the Inland Revenue: ‘Under both r 10.15(6) and r 10.20(3) I have a discretion. In the light of the authorities I propose to exercise it by reference to the following considerations.
It is greatly in the public interest that all tax due should be paid and that in serious cases, pour encourager les autres, evaders of tax should be convicted and sentenced. It feels unseemly that a judge to whose notice tax evasion is brought should turn a blind eye to it by not causing it to be reported to the Revenue. In one sense that would almost cheapen the law.
On the other hand it is greatly in the public interest that in proceedings for ancillary relief the parties should make full and frank disclosure of their resources and thus often of aspects of their financial history. Were it to be understood that candour would be likely to lead – in all but the very rare case – to exposure of under-declarations to the Revenue, the pressure wrongfully to dissemble within the proceedings might be irresistible to a far bigger congregation of litigants than is typified by the husband in these proceedings, who of course resolved not to be candid in any event. False presentations by respondents in ancillary proceedings have two repercussions, both seriously contrary to the public interest:
(a)either the judge remains deceived, in which the case the award is likely to be inaptly low, or he perceives the deception, whereupon he may draw necessarily broad inferences of hidden wealth which, depending on their scale, could make the award inaptly high or indeed leave it still inaptly low; and
(b)applicants are seldom minded to compromise their claims on the basis of presentations which they believe to be materially false and their stance, if justified by the court’s findings, will often be upheld in relation to costs. Yet the family justice system depends upon the compromise of all but a few applications for ancillary relief.
Between these two opposing public interests must the individual circumstances be weighed.’

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

[1997] 2 FLR 774

Statutes:

Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012 29.12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChurchhouse, Regina (on the Application of) v Inland Revenue Admn 4-Apr-2003
The taxpayer was a revenue informer one whose trade is described by Coke as ‘viperous vermin [who] under the reverend mantle of law and justice instituted for protection of the innocent, and the good of the Commonwealth, did vexe and depauperize the . .
CitedV v W FC 2-Dec-2020
FDR Appointment Must Remain Confidential
XYZ had been appointed to value a family company within financial relief proceedings, but on seeking payment of their fees, and facing a counterclaim alleging negligence, they sought disclosure of the transcript of the Financial Dispute Resolution . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.194952

Regina (Cooke) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: QBD 30 Jan 2007

The claimant solicitor sought a judicial review of a requirement made by the revenue that he must produce the papers of his client taxpayer under the section.
Held: The effect of the section was to require a notice to be given by a commissioner and not by an inspector, and altered the applicable provisions according to who served the notice. The section left unsaid the extent to which the commissioners could delegate their functions, and any decision remained subject to the possibility of a judicial review. A public authority has a duty to provide full and fair disclosure and explanations.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 12-Feb-2007

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedRegina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Taxes Management

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.248919

Peter Buchanan Limited and Macharg v McVey: 1954

(Supreme Court of Ireland) The plaintiff was a company registered in Scotland put into compulsory liquidation by the revenue under a substantial claim for excess profits tax and income tax. The liquidator was really a nominee of the revenue. The defendant director had realised all the company’s assets and having paid all the debts save the revenue, had the balance transferred to himself to his credit with an Irish bank. He moved to Ireland. The action appeared to seek to recover the balance from the defendant at the instance of the company directed by the liquidator.
Held: The director’s actions were dishonestly intended to defeat the claim of the revenue in Scotland as a creditor. However though the action was in form an action by the company to recover these assets, it was found ‘For the purpose of this case it is sufficient to say that when it appears to the court that the whole object of the suit is to collect tax for a foreign revenue, and that this will be the sole result of a decision in favour of the plaintiff, then a court is entitled to reject the claim by refusing jurisdiction’ and as an attempt to enforce indirectly a claim to tax by the revenue authorities of another State, the action was dismissed.

Judges:

Kingsmill Moore J

Citations:

[1955] AC 516, [1954] IR 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedGovernment of India v Taylor HL 1955
The Government of India sought to prove in the voluntary liquidation of a company registered in the United Kingdom but trading in India for a sum due in respect of Indian income tax, including capital gains tax, which arose on the sale of the . .
ApprovedIn re State of Norway’s application (Nos 1 and 2) HL 1989
The House considered an application by a foreign state seeking assistance in obtaining evidence here to be used in enforcing its own revenue laws at home.
Held: Rule 3 of the Convention encapsulated a ‘fundamental rule of English Law’, but did . .
FollowedQRS 1 APS and others v Frandsen CA 21-May-1999
The appellants were all Danish companies put into liquidation for asset stripping in contravention of Danish law. The respondent was resident in the UK and had owned them. The Danish tax authorities issued tax demands and the liquidators now sought . .
CitedWilliams and Humbert Ltd v W and H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd HL 1986
There had been an expropriation by Spanish decrees of shares in a Spanish company whose English subsidiary had rights in trade marks which it had sold to a Jersey company. The Spanish and English companies sought certain relief in relation to the . .
CitedHolland v Lampen-Wolfe HL 20-Jul-2000
The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state . .
CitedHill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2006
The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set . .
CitedMbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Taxes Management

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.225455

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Davis Frankel and Mead (A Firm): QBD 11 Jul 2000

The power of the Board of the Inland Revenue to issue notices requiring information was both draconian and intrusive. Nevertheless it was proper to issue a notice to a respectable firm of solicitors who had acted over the years for the tax payer under investigation, might well put a substantial burden upon them, but could nevertheless be delegated to a tax inspector acting as special compliance officer. The power to delegate was not limited by the later Act.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000

Statutes:

Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1980 4(A), Finance Act 1976, Taxes Management Act 1970 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85323

Gardner-Shaw UK Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 3 Aug 2018

PROCEDURE – application to vary directions while original directions under appeal in face of newly presented evidence – whether special circumstances – nature of relevant evidence in cases of ‘supervisory’ jurisdiction – application allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 432 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621427