HL Income tax, Schedule E – Non-resident employer – Employees working in U.K. sector of North Sea – Whether employer liable to deduct tax from emoluments – Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s 181 and s 204 – Finance Act 1973, 5 38 – Continental Shelf Act 1964 … Continue reading Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Oceanic Contractors Inc: HL 16 Dec 1982
The tax payer played tennis and was paid sums for when he played in England. The sums were paid to his overseas based company. Held: The revenue’s appeal succeeded. The ‘legislative intendment in relation to sections 555 and 556, and their statutory predecessors in the 1986 Act, was that foreign entertainers and sportsmen who, or … Continue reading Agassi v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes: HL 17 May 2006
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside the rule-maker’s power. Held: Even though the rule-making power is wide … Continue reading Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others: HL 30 Jul 2009
The applicant had been employed to provide services to RAF in the Ascension Islands. He alleged constructive dismissal. There was an issue as to whether somebody working in the Ascension Islands was protected by the 1996 Act. The restriction on jurisdiction in s196 had been removed. The question now was as to what test applied … Continue reading Serco Ltd v Lawson and Foreign and Commonwealth Office: CA 23 Jan 2004
Where an employer has not deducted tax, the employee can be liable to a tax assessment. The recipient of Schedule E income can still be directly assessable. HL Income Tax – Schedule E – Employment – Gain on sale of shares – Whether taxable under Schedule E – Whether purchaser liable to deduct tax under … Continue reading Inland Revenue Commissioners v Herd: HL 17 Jun 1993
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava religion in London. Held: Charities Act jurisdiction is restricted to charities registered … Continue reading Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary: CA 30 Jul 1997
The House was asked whether the liability of a credit card company under the 1974 Act applied where the contract was performed abroad and subject to foreign law. Held: The principle which disapplied an English statute in an extra-territorial situation did not apply where the creditor was within the UK. Section 75(2) is therefore an … Continue reading Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank PlC and Others: HL 31 Oct 2007
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence establishments in Germany; under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 … Continue reading Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited: HL 26 Jan 2006
Where legislation regulates the conduct of an individual, it may be so construed as to limit it to conduct by United Kingdom citizens anywhere. James LJ referred to ‘broad, general, universal principle that English legislation, unless the contrary is expressly enacted or so plainly implied as to make it the duty of an English court … Continue reading Ex parte Blain; In re Sawers: CA 1 Aug 1879
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court was asked whether German or UK law applied to the assessment of the damages. Held: … Continue reading Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag: SC 2 Apr 2014
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . .