Click the case name for better results:

Han 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 the rules of such proceedings as civil was a starting point only. The fact that no sanction of … Continue reading Han and Yau t/a Murdishaw Supper Bar, and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 3 Jul 2001

Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others: ComC 6 Oct 2006

The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings on the defendant companies abroad, outside a Lugano Convention country. Held: The claim should proced. ‘There … Continue reading Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others: ComC 6 Oct 2006

Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others: CA 17 May 2006

The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out to evict her. She claimed that the authority had to get a court authority before so evicting her. … Continue reading Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others: CA 17 May 2006

Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others: ChD 30 Jan 2006

The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse. Held: The power was validly exercised. Provided the recovery of the sums for which the security was given … Continue reading Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others: ChD 30 Jan 2006

Ahmadi v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 17 Apr 2018

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether penalties correctly imposed – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed Citations: [2018] UKFTT 222 (TC) Links: … Continue reading Ahmadi v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 17 Apr 2018

Yosefi v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 8 Nov 2017

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed Citations: [2017] UKFTT 814 (TC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Yosefi v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 8 Nov 2017

Chaudhary v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Nov 2017

FTTTx (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling) Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed Citations: … Continue reading Chaudhary v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Nov 2017

Khan v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Sep 2017

Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling – Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – late appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) Finance Act 1994 – cross application by HMRC to strike out – merits of appeal considered – whether any reasonable prospect of the … Continue reading Khan v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Sep 2017

Ali v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 8 Mar 2017

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed Citations: [2017] UKFTT 218 (TC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Ali v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 8 Mar 2017

Jenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 16 Jun 1997

Legislation which created a clear anomaly can be interpreted so as to avoid the anomaly if the words used are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow an alternative construction.Neuberger J discussed the case of Marshall v Kerr, saying: ‘It appears to me that the observations of Peter Gibson J, approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Marshall indicate … Continue reading Jenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 16 Jun 1997

Elder v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Other): FTTTx 9 Oct 2018

EXCISE and CUSTOMS DUTY – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – disclosure – no – minimal co-operation – appeal dismissed Citations: [2018] UKFTT 588 (TC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Elder v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Other): FTTTx 9 Oct 2018

Khalid v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 23 Nov 2018

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed Citations: [2018] UKFTT 688 (TC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Khalid v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 23 Nov 2018

Iqbal v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Oct 2016

FTTTx Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling – Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed … Continue reading Iqbal v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Oct 2016

Mahmud v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 28 Sep 2016

FTTTx Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed [2016] UKFTT 662 (TC) Bailii England and … Continue reading Mahmud v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 28 Sep 2016

Samia Zaheer v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 18 May 2016

FTTTx Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties-s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed [2016] UKFTT 347 TC Bailii Finance Act 2003 25(1) … Continue reading Samia Zaheer v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 18 May 2016

Rashid v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 17 May 2016

FTTTx Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed [2016] UKFTT 334 TC Bailii England and … Continue reading Rashid v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 17 May 2016

Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 28 Jul 2005

Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by other companies should proceed through the Commissioners who could implement European law directly. The taxpayers … Continue reading Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 28 Jul 2005