The taxpayer was a name at Lloyds. The inspector appealed a finding that the taxpayer’s trading losses could be attributed to one particular year, and set off through his PAYE coding. The difference would be that according to the inspector’s proposal, the tax would be paid in one year, and reclaimed in the following year.
Held: The inspector could take into account in fixing the PAYE code anticipated liabilities in future years. The system normally worked in favour of the government, and the inspector must accept that there would be times also when it did not work to his advantage. The taxpayer was allowed to organise his tax returns as he had done..
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 754 (Ch), Times 17-Apr-2003, Gazette 19-Jun-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Blackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling CA 21-Aug-2003
The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Taxes Management, Income Tax
Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.180583