application for referral to Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under paragraph 45 of Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003 – refused
[2020] UKFTT 242 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652296
Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 – notice to provide detailed chronological directors’ loan account -penalty – whether reasonable excuse for failure to comply – no
[2019] UKFTT 553 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.641336
Recusal application – whether a fair-minded and informed observed would conclude that there was ‘a real risk’ that my decision in this appeal might have a bearing on a case heard but not decided by the High Court – application refused.
[2018] UKFTT 594 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632290
Application to notify appeal out of time – whether burden of proof met to enable effective service of notice of appeal to be deemed – whether administration error in a professional firm a good explanation for the delay – whether respondents’ notices to extend time to carry out review relevant – application refused
[2018] UKFTT 531 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632307
PROCEDURE – application for permission for late notification of appeal – reliance on advisers – delay by HMRC in providing information — case could be added to existing appeals without much further work – balancing of factors – permission granted
[2021] UKFTT 67 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661783
[2021] UKFTT 42 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661764
Application to notify an appeal out of time – Dispute as to length of delay – Consideration of reasons for the delay – Evaluation of the circumstances – Discussion of the Morse Review – Application dismissed – Recovery of debt abroad and observation on HMRC’s Care and Management Powers
[2021] UKFTT 62 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661792
Application to strike out appeal – no reasonable prospect of success – Rule 8(3)(c) – MTIC appeal – evidence filed by Appellant alleged not to deal with case advanced by HMRC
[2021] UKFTT 25 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661750
Procedure – application for amendment of grounds of appeal – further detail of pleadings requested by Respondents – application allowed – directions issued
[2020] UKFTT 514 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661818
Challenge to the lawfulness of an investigation by HMRC of tax affairs relating to the claimant’s businesses in Europe. HMRC had been claiming a right to conduct an informal investigation using the 2005 Act. The taxpayer sought judicial review of their actions.
Held: The request for review was refused. The statute gave to the revenue functions including both to open an enquiry into a return under the 1970 Act during the enquiry window, and to check returns without opening a section 9A enquiry, even after the enquiry window had closed, to see if there was cause to make a discovery assessment. Such checks might include not only rereading the file but also undertaking investigations and enquiries to obtain more information to satisfy their interests.
HMRC’s functions include the collection of taxes, and collecting the correct amount of tax from taxpayers. Investigating whether a taxpayer has declared all his income and paid the correct amount of tax is necessary, expedient, incidental or conducive to the exercise of that function and is authorised by the powers in section 9 CRCA 2005. The use of such an ‘informal investigation’ was not inconsistent with the statutory scheme, but was consistent with it. The statutory scheme includes not only opening an enquiry into a return under section 9A TMA 1970 during the enquiry window, but also checking returns without opening a section 9A enquiry, including after the enquiry window has closed, with a view to ascertaining if there is ground to issue a discovery assessment, and that such checking can include not just rereading the file but carrying out investigations and enquiries to see if any further information can be obtained that sheds light on the question. Given that statutory scheme, there is nothing inconsistent in HMRC having power to ask a taxpayer for information and documents on a voluntary basis. It would be the very antithesis of good administration for an arm of the state to use compulsory powers as a first step in obtaining information from an individual, rather than resort to them only when all attempts to obtain the information voluntarily had run into the sand. As a matter of common sense, cooperation and collaboration facilitates the collection of the public revenue.
Judicial review in relation to a decision to investigate will only be justified in a wholly exceptional case, and the circumstances of this case did not meet that threshold, concluding, ‘there is nothing sufficiently egregious about the present case which would justify taking the wholly exceptional course of reviewing that decision’.
Nugee J
[2019] EWHC 2006 (Admin), [2020] 2 WLR 195, [2019] ACD 108, [2019] STC 1772, [2019] WLR(D) 493
Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 9(1), Taxes Management Act 1970 29
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Panel of Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Fayed CA 1992
Steyn LJ said of the reviewability of decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions: ‘. . it seems to me that, in the absence of evidence of fraud, corruption or mala fides, judicial review will not be allowed to probe its decision to charge . .
Appeal from – JJ Management Consulting Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Jun-2020
HMRC has power to conduct informal investigation
The taxpayer, resident here, but with substantial oversea business interests, challenged the conduct of an informal investigation of his businesses under the 2005 Act, saying that HMRC, as a creature of statute, are only permitted to do that which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.640128
Procedure : – whether Rule 18 direction for appeals to be related cases appropriate – yes
[2018] UKFTT 500 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.622381
Application to discharge worldwide asset freezing order, made to support investigation of a suspected ‘inward diversion fraud’.
Floyd J
[2011] EWHC 2782 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.448150
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 the assessments for the year in question. The taxpayer appealed against the decision to allow the revenue to reopen the assessments, and the revenue appealed against allowing the claim of the full cost in the first year.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal was allowed, and that of the taxpayer rejected. HMRC had been free to advance alternative arguments on the expenditure issue. All of the consideration provided for in the SLA was not expenditure incurred on the provision of software. The closure notices were to be amended to allow only 25% of the first year allowances claimed.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson
[2011] UKSC 19, UKSC 2010/0041, [2011] 3 All ER 171, [2011] STC 1143, [2011] STI 1620, [2011] BTC 294, [2011] 2 WLR 1131, [2011] 2 AC 457
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970 28B, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 118ZA
England and Wales
At SCIT – 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 . .
At ChD – 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 . .
At CA – 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 . .
Cited – UBS Ag and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 9-Mar-2016
UBS AG devised an employee bonus scheme to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the 2003 Act, with the sole purpose other than tax avoidance, and such consequential advantages as would flow from tax avoidance. Several pre-ordained steps . .
Cited – JJ Management Consulting Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Jun-2020
HMRC has power to conduct informal investigation
The taxpayer, resident here, but with substantial oversea business interests, challenged the conduct of an informal investigation of his businesses under the 2005 Act, saying that HMRC, as a creature of statute, are only permitted to do that which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.439647
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
[2010] UKFTT 537 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.426653
Applications for permission for late notification of appeal – reliance on advisers – significant delays without good reason — whether reasonable to await outcome of ADR application – cases could be added to existing appeals without much further work – balancing of factors – permission refused
[2021] UKFTT 66 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661781
(Grand Chamber) The court had to decide whether tax proceedings brought by the state against an individual involved the determination of a civil right within the meaning of article 6(1). It was argued by the Government that the existence of an individual’s tax obligation to pay tax belonged exclusively to the realm of public law and its determination did not involve a determination of a civil right. The court said: ‘Pecuniary interests are clearly at stake in tax proceedings, but merely showing that a dispute is ‘pecuniary’ in nature is not in itself sufficient to attract the applicability of Article 6(1) under its ‘civil’ head. In particular, according to the traditional case law of the Conventional institutions, there may exist ‘pecuniary’ obligations vis-a-vis the State or its subordinate authorities which, for the purpose of Article 6(1), are to be considered as belonging exclusively to the realm of public law and are accordingly not covered by the notion of ‘civil rights and obligations’. Apart from fines imposed by way of ‘criminal sanction’, this will be the case, in particular, where an obligation which is pecuniary in nature derives from tax legislation or is otherwise part of normal civic duties in a democratic society.
The Convention is, however, a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, and it is incumbent on the Court to review whether, in the light of changed attitudes in society as to the legal protection that falls to be accorded to individuals in their relations with the State, the scope of Article 6(1) should not be extended to cover disputes between citizens and public authorities as to the lawfulness under domestic law of the tax authorities’ decisions.
Relations between the individual and the State have clearly developed in many spheres during the 50 years which have elapsed since the Convention was adopted, with State regulation increasingly intervening in private-law regulations. This has led the Court to find that procedures defined under national law as being part of ‘public law’ could come within the purview of Article 6 under its ‘civil’ head if the outcome was decisive for private rights and obligations, in regard to such matters as, to give some examples, the sale of land, the running of a private clinic, property interests, the granting of administrative authorisations relating to the conditions of professional practice or of a licence to serve alcoholic beverages. Moreover, the State’s increasing intervention in the individual’s day-to-day life, in terms of welfare protection, for example, has required the Court to evaluate features of public law and private law before concluding that the asserted right could be classified as ‘civil’.
However, rights and obligations existing for an individual are not necessarily civil in nature. Thus, political rights and obligations, such as the right to stand for election to the National Assembly, even though in those proceedings the applicant’s pecuniary interests were at stake, are not civil in nature, with the consequence that Article 6(1) does not apply. Neither does that provision apply to disputes between administrative authorities and those of their employees who occupy posts involving participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law. Similarly, the expulsion of aliens does not give rise to disputes over civil rights for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Convention, which accordingly does not apply.
In the tax field, developments which might have occurred in democratic societies do not, however, affect the fundamental nature of the obligation on individuals or companies to pay tax. In comparison with the position when the Convention was adopted, those developments have not entailed a further intervention by the State into the ‘civil’ sphere of the individual’s life. The Court considers that tax matters still form part of the hard core of public-authority prerogatives, with the public nature of the relationship between the taxpayer and the tax authority remaining predominant . .’
Wildhaber J P
[2001] STC 1314, (2001) 34 EHRR 1068, 44759/98, [2001] ECHR 464, 3 ITL Rep 918
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited – Prosser v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue SCIT 12-Mar-2003
INHERITANCE TAX – interest on outstanding tax – whether not due on account of Human Rights points – interest due. . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – BB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another CA 19-Nov-2012
The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007. . .
Cited – QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-May-2020
Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1) . .
Cited – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd SC 24-Jun-2020
SC Kymab alleged that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The patents were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.164805
PROCEDURE – reinstatement application – appeal struck out following breach of unless order – application refused
[2021] UKFTT 46 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661760
INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX – Appeal against data-holder notice under Schedule 23 FA 2011 – Appeal against information notice under Schedule 36 FA 2008 – Appeal against penalties
[2020] UKFTT 215 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651607
PENALTY – Failure to comply with notices under s313C of Finance Act 2004 – whether penalties ‘criminal charges’ for purposes of Article 6 of the ECHR – whether conditions to issue notices satisfied – whether HMRC entitled to serve multiple notices – whether taxpayer had reasonable excuse – penalties of pounds 4,000 and pounds 3,000 imposed
[2018] UKFTT 649 (TC), [2019] SFTD 369, [2019] STI 337
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.632414
Three members of the Bar and a firm of solicitors, the Stokoe Partnership, have sought to persuade this court that the Court of Appeal Criminal Division does not have the power to authorise expenditure from public funds for applications for leave to appeal conviction or sentence before leave to appeal is given.
[2007] EWHC 1588 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.254477
Procedure – dismissed out of time
[2013] UKFTT 227 (TC)
England and Wales
See Also – Wallace v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 4-Jul-2012
FTTTx TYPE OF TAX – capital gains tax – returns admittedly omitted chargeable gains -assessment raised – not properly appealed for over 2 years – whether permission should be granted to bring a late appeal – . .
Appeal from – Wallace v Revenue and Customs ChD 6-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the relevant statutory regime permitted the claimant to pursue a claim at common law for restitution of overpaid income tax or, whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
Held: They are two sides of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491874
FTTTx Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009, Schedule 56 – whether an insufficiency of funds was a reasonable excuse for late payment – no – whether lack of specific warning a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – whether the penalty was disproportionate – no appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 223 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491848
FTTTx Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009, Schedule 56 – whether lack of specific warning a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – whether the penalty was disproportionate – no – whether unfair – no appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 224 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491845
Application that HMRC be precluded from raising an alternative argument set out in their skeleton argument that Montpelier acted on behalf of the appellants when considering the 20 year time limit for discovery assessments – skeleton only submitted a fortnight before the hearing of the appeals – Quah, Hicks and Taube considered – application allowed
[2021] UKFTT 29 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661770
[2021] UKFTT 43 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661756
The Claimant sought Judicial Review of four closure notices rejecting the Claimant’s claim for capital losses, advanced in relation to the four tax years.
The Claimant asserted a legitimate expectation to claim those capital losses, in reliance on guidance published by the Commissioners in 2003. The Claimant contends that his legitimate expectation cannot and should not be frustrated by the Commissioners’ withdrawal of the 2003 guidance by means of a Revenue and Customs Brief issued in 2009 and by the Closure Notices which relied on RCB 30/09, because to do so would be so conspicuously unfair as to amount to an abuse of the Commissioners’ powers.
The Commissioners respond that there is no conspicuous unfairness in this case and that there is an overriding public interest in collecting the correct amount of tax. They resist this challenge.’
Held: The request was granted: ‘ Once a legitimate expectation on the part of the taxpayer had been established, the Commissioners were obliged to balance all aspects of unfairness to determine whether, overall, there would be conspicuous unfairness in collecting the tax due. In this case, the Claimant was complaining of unfairness which went far beyond detrimental reliance (although his complaint included that feature). The Commissioners did not consider those other aspects of unfairness. The Closure Notices which were the product of the balancing exercise must for that reason be quashed.’
Whipple J
[2015] EWHC 3261 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554572
Photocopies of documents were sent to leading counsel. The Inland Revenue sought their production under s20.
Held: The copies had been produced for purposes attracting legal professional privilege, and were not discoverable to the Revenue even though the originals might have been.
[1989] QB 267
England and Wales
Cited – Brown and Another v Bennett and Others (No 3) ChD 17-Dec-2001
When a barrister was the subject of an application for a wasted costs order, it was proper to require him to disclose which non-privileged documents he had had sight of, provided that the request was not a way of trying to discover what was in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.182888
The Commissioners are under a common law duty to treat taxpayers fairly, and not to discriminate without justification between taxpayers.
[2001] EWHC Admin 127
England and Wales
Cited – Regina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 18-Jun-2003
The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife’s death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.140281
PROCEDURE – application for direction that HMRC answer 15 questions – whether ‘mirror’ of Fairford Directions – held, no – application refused.
[2021] UKFTT 28 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661757
ANNUAL TAX ON ENVELOPED DWELLINGS – late filing of return – late filing penalties imposed under Schedule 55 to Finance Act 2009 – whether the conditions met for imposition of penalties – conditions met for paragraph 5 penalty but not for paragraph 4 penalties – whether Appellant had reasonable excuse for its delay in filing – no – appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 21 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661728
Discovery assessment – could hypothetical officer reasonably be expected to be aware of insufficiency- untaxed gain included in STRGL not P and L – information provided by other group companies to HMRC – whether provided on behalf of Appellant
[2021] UKFTT 23 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661726
Application to reinstate withdrawn appeal under Rule 17(3). Pierhead Purchasing Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] UKUT 321 (TCC) considered. Dominic Chappel v The Pensions Regulator [2019] UKUT 209 (TCC) applied. Where the Appellant is saying that the withdrawal was made without its knowledge and consent by its duly appointed representative then the prejudice to the Appellant in not being able to have a full hearing is outweighed by the prejudice to the efficient administration of justice if parties are allowed to simply disavow the actions of a duly appointed representative. Any prejudice to the Appellant is ameliorated by the fact that it has a case against its own representative
[2020] UKFTT 55 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.649141
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.
Gross LJ, Burnett J
[2014] EWHC 1586 (Admin), [2015] 1 QB 481, [2014] 3 WLR 1660, [2014] WLR(D) 226
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, European Convention of Human Rights 2
England and Wales
Dictum adopted – The 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 – Black, 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 . .
Cited – Secretary 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. . .
Cited – Black, 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 . .
Cited – Black, 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.
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.526075
Renewed application for permission to appeal.
Chadwick LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 328
England and Wales
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.216920
Procedure – financial hardship application – VAT assessment – Appellant awaiting determination of a VAT refund claim and CIS repayment claim from HMRC – financial information requested by HMRC in support of the hardship application – information not provided – application refused
[2020] UKFTT 145 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650694
PROCEDURE – application for permission to notify appeal out of time – Martland applied – belief that disagreement would be resolved without an appeal – relevance of the merits of the substantive appeal – application refused
[2020] UKFTT 146 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650685
The taxpayer company was a non-trading company owing shareholders substantial sums. Rather than pay dividends it waived dividends it held in a public company, and the shareholder waived interest on the loans. The IR apportioned the income of the company between the shareholders pro rata according to their interest on a winding up. The commissioners on appeal said they could not substitute their own view for the Revenue where the Revenue had not exceeded its powers.
Held: The Commissioners did have the jurisdiction to review the Revenue’s decision. But in this case the Revenue could not be said to have incorrectly exercised their discretion.
Goulding J
[1981] Ch 47, (1979) 53 TC 223
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 296`
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary) v Police Appeals Tribunal QBD 2-Feb-2004
The constable was disciplined. The Police Appeals Tribunal ordered his re-instatement. The Chief constable complained that the tribunal had acted beyond its powers in not limiting itself to a review.
Held: The task of the tribunal was to . .
Cited – Tom Hudson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v JDC Services Limited ChD 26-Mar-2004
The taxpayer company had been refused a statutory Construction Industry Scheme certificate. The General Commissioners allowed the company’s appeal and itself issued a certificate. The revenue said the Commissioners had no jurisdiction either to hear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.193468
HMRC application for further and better particulars – whether to strike out the appeal – appeal not struck out – sufficient information already provided and Application refused – directions issued for the ongoing progress of the appeal
[2021] UKFTT 2 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.661731
PROCEDURE – application by third party for access after decision issued to copy off an email within the document bundle- granted
[2020] UKFTT 511 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.661806
PROCEDURE – application for reinstatement – application refused
[2020] UKFTT 108 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.649156
PROCEDURE – ex parte application by HMRC for Tribunal approval of information notice to taxpayer – taxpayer applying to attend hearing of that application – whether has right to do so – no – whether Tribunal has power to permit it to attend – no – taxpayer’s application dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 81 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.649136
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 genuine, and the payments were made in respect of a genuine accrual of interest.
Times 26-Oct-1998, Gazette 18-Nov-1998, [2001] 2 WLR 377, [1998] EWCA Civ 1608
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 338
England and Wales
Cited – W 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 . .
At ChD – McNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd ChD 19-Aug-1997
Loans made between associated companies for the sole purpose of creating a charge to tax were ineffective as avoidance scheme. . .
Cited – 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 . .
At CA – MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.83580
PROCEDURE – application for costs – whether HMRC acted unreasonably – Appellant issued with personal liability notices on the basis of dishonesty – HMRC withdrew on receipt of new evidence – whether unreasonable of HMRC not to have withdrawn when received Appellant’s witness statement – whether unreasonable not to have accepted that statement given that it was accompanied by a statement of truth – held, HMRC did not act unreasonably and application refused.
[2020] UKFTT 488 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.661816
INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX – Application by HMRC for information/documents in support of reasons that certain arrangement is not ‘notifiable’ under DOTAS – Application allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 48 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.661774
Pensions – primary and enhanced protection – notification – whether reasonable excuse for late notification – yes – whether late notification made without unreasonable delay – no – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 161 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650687
PROCEDURE – HMRC seeking to rely on documents confidential to one appeal in joined appeal concerning that appellant and another appellant – first appellant objecting – decision based on relevance of material – application allowed in part
[2020] UKFTT 102 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.649133
PAYE. Reasonable excuse. Inaccurate information from HMRC.
[2011] UKFTT 235 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.442982
P35 return – Penalty for late return (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.98A) – Reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 363 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.443076
Strike-out Application – late Notice of Appeal – jurisdiction – Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – CEMA 1994 Sections 49(1) and 139(1) – Application allowed
[2012] UKFTT 454 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.466037
Appeal against an employer’s penalty imposed as a result of the late online submission of P35 return – mistaken belief as to whether return submitted – reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 280 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.442976
Procedure – appeal out of time under s49 Taxes Management Act -no extension granted under case management powers in rule 5 -appeal not admitted
[2011] UKFTT 323 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.443020
The claimant sought damages from the revenue for their failure properly to process his claim for a sub-contractor’s certificate which had led to losses.
Held: The revenue owed no common law duty of care to the claimant and nor were damages claimable under the section, and the claim failed. The Act imposed no statutory time scale for the issue of a certificate.
Andrew Simmonds, QC
Times 13-Oct-2006
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 561(2)
England and Wales
Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
See Also – Neil Martin International Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 10-Oct-2005
reasonable excuse appeal . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.247522
Issues remitted from Court of Appeal – Whether appellant should be permitted seek to amend its tax computation to reflect any unrecognised fair value reductions in its derivative contracts – Whether proposed amendment only apparent following Court of Appeal judgment – Applicable principles to be applied – Application dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 493 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.661825
STRIKE-OUT – appellant’s failure to comply with unless order – previous defaults – Appellant’s solicitor overlooking time limits – Rule 8(3), Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
[2019] UKFTT 751 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.646929
Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs (FA 2009 Sch 56) – Whether HMRC system for administering the penalties unfair – No – Whether penalty disproportionate – No – Whether a reasonable excuse for late payment – No – Whether ‘special circumstances’ justifying a special reduction – No – Appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 471 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.466062
The taxpayer company wanted to appeal an assessment to corporation tax. It applied for a postponment of some part of the tax pending the appeal. That was refused, and it appealed to the high court. The revenue now appealed that court’s decision saying that the court had failed to take heed of one of its arguments.
Held: The commissioner had not had regard to an argument put forward by the taxpayer. It was correct to remit the case to a different commissioner rather than to try to redetermine the issue itself. Parliament had specified the special commissioners as the tribunal to make this decision, to hear argument, and to decide how much tax was to be postponed.
Peter Gibson, Tuckey, Keene LJJ,
[2003] EWCA Civ 700, Times 16-May-2003, Gazette 17-Jul-2003, [2003] BTC 275, [2003] STC 890, 75 TC 300, [2003] STI 966
Taxes Management Act 1970 56A(4)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Inspector of Taxes v Pumahaven Ltd ChD 2002
The taxpayer appealed for permission to postpone payment of Corporation Tax pending determination of an appeal on that assessment. The application was refused. . .
Cited – Regina v Hastings and Bexhill General Commissioners, Ex parte Goodacre ChD 1994
The General Commissioners had made a procedural error in wrongly refusing to grant an adjournment and, on an application for judicial review, the court quashed the refusal, adding that the fact that the taxpayer might not be successful was not a . .
Appealed to – Inspector of Taxes v Pumahaven Ltd ChD 2002
The taxpayer appealed for permission to postpone payment of Corporation Tax pending determination of an appeal on that assessment. The application was refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.182347
PROCEDURE – Taxpayers’ applications for closure notices – HMRC applying to FTT without notice for approval of third party information notices – FTT refusing to allow taxpayers to participate in third party notice hearings and staying closure notice applications – FTT’s powers in ‘without notice’ applications to approve information notices – whether FTT’s decisions wrong in law.
[2020] UKUT 29 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650131
Permission to make a late appeal refused by FTTTx – appellant maintained underlying excise duty and penalty assessments invalid because they did not name a natural or legal person – TT Decision on permission to appeal out of time set aside for errors of law and remade by UT – time limit for appealing to FTT still applied where appellant sought to challenge validity of assessments before the FTT – permission to appeal out of time refused.
[2020] UKUT 113 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650141
[2006] EWHC 300 (Ch), 77 TC 484
Taxes Management Act 1970 97AA(1)(a)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.341763
Appellant’s applications for barring order, summary judgment, costs and in the alternative, an amendment to the Tribunal’s direction – applications refused
[2020] UKFTT 508 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.661802
DOTAS – Application for order that certain arrangements are notifiable (or alternatively that they are to be treated as notifiable) – sections 306A and 314A Finance Act 2004 – whether arrangements ‘notifiable arrangements’ – yes – whether respondent ‘promoter’ – no – application refused
[2019] UKFTT 63 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.635676
[2007] EWCA Civ 1041, [2008] Bus LR 663
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Part XIII
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.260052
PAYE – default penalty for late payment – reasonable excuse – no
[2013] UKFTT 789 (TC)
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472764
FTTTx PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – appellant did not receive warning letter and always posted the PAYE on or around the 19th of the month – appeal allowed in respect of two months – dismissed in respect of all other months
[2012] UKFTT 756 (TC)
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472753
FTTTx Information notice – Third Party Notice – FA 2008, Sch 36 – ‘relevant foreign tax’ – European Convention on Human Rights – right to a fair hearing
[2012] UKFTT 765 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472736
FTTTx PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – whether a genuine belief that the PAYE had been posted in time was a reasonable excuse – no – whether the lack of a specific warning was a reasonable excuse – no – whether the penalty was disproportionate or unfair – no – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 720 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472748
FTTTX Appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – whether fact that appellant was given no specific warning was a reasonable excuse- no – whether lack of knowledge was a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 736 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472739
FTTTx PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – appellant admitted paying late but claimed penalty was disproportionate – Tribunal found that appellant had no reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 718 (TC)
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472749
FTTTx TYPE OF TAX – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009-appellant claimed to have paid in advance to meet the liability resulting in an overpayment in the previous year – HMRC reallocated the payments as best it could and had considerably reduced the initial penalty however without further evidence of the overpayment could do no more – appeal dismissed with proviso with the agreement of HMRC that if evidence provided of overpayment penalty would be recalculated
[2012] UKFTT 767 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472744
FTTTx PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – whether penalty disproportionate – no – whether fact that appellant had to wait for money from its head office in Italy was a reasonable excuse- yes initially – appeal allowed in part in respect of months 2 and 3
[2012] UKFTT 722 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472740
Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs payments – FA 2009, Sch 56 -Whether a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 734 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472732
21580/07 – HEJUD, [2013] ECHR 270, 21565/07, 21572/07, 21575/07
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472464
Jussila; burden of proof; reasonable excuse; P35; plain dealing; fairness.
[2011] UKFTT 260 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.442996
FTTTx CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – notices of determination – whether UK contractor obliged to make deductions under the scheme in respect of payments made to its Isle of Man parent company -yes- withdrawal of gross payment status – whether discretion properly exercised -yes- FA 2004 Sections 57 to 67 – Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 Regulations 9 and 13- appeals dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 207 (TC)
Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 9 13
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472431
Application by Respondents to have the Appellant’s appeal struck out in accordance with rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.
The Respondents say that the Application is made since the matter concerned is not an appealable matter under Section 83 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (‘VATA’) and as such the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Khan
[2013] UKFTT 174 (TC)
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 8(3)(c)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472397
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009, Schedule 56 – whether lack of specific warning a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – whether the penalty was disproportionate – no appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 107 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472373
FTTTx SURCHARGE – appeal against surcharges imposed for late payment of income tax-submitted that he delayed paying the tax as he was waiting for clarification of his account from HMRC- appeal dismissed- appellant had no reasonable excuse
[2013] UKFTT 138 (TC)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472355
FTTTx Penalty – late filing of partnership return – s 93A TMA 1970 – appellant maintained return had been filed on time – appellant’s evidence accepted – appeal allowed
[2013] UKFTT 108 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472368
FTTTx INCOME TAX – surcharge for failure to pay on time – time to pay agreement – failure to comply with the terms of the agreement – money used instead to support taxpayer’s company by paying company’s outstanding tax liabilities – whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider proportionality of surcharge – no – whether reasonable excuse – yes – effect of default under time to pay agreement – appeal allowed
[2013] UKFTT 109 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472356
FTTTX INCOME TAX – Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs (FA 2009 Sch 56) – Whether a reasonable excuse for late payment – No – Whether ‘special circumstances’ justifying a special reduction – No – Appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 119 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472369
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009, Schedule 56 – whether an insufficiency of funds was a reasonable excuse for late payment – no – whether lack of specific warning a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – whether the penalty was disproportionate – no appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 52 (TC)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472311
FTTTX INCOME TAX – Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009, Schedule 56 whether lack of specific warning a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – whether the penalty was disproportionate – no appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 66 (TC)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472308
INCOME TAX – whether name of appellant incorrect on Notice to File self-assessment tax return – if so, whether this invalidates the Notice – TMA s 114 considered – self-assessment return filed late – whether reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed and penalty confirmed.
[2013] UKFTT 88 (TC)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472302
FTTTx APPLICATION TO BAR HMRC FROM PROCEEDINGS – HMRC admitted deficiencies which included failure to comply with a Tribunal order timeously – whether prejudicial to appellant – application refused
[2013] UKFTT 90 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472291
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009, Schedule 56 – Whether an insufficiency of funds, exacerbated by an obligation to adhere to a previous time to pay arrangement was a reasonable excuse for late payment – no – whether lack of specific warning a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – whether the penalty was disproportionate – no appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 56 (TC)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472294
FTTTX PAYE- appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009-PAYE payments late each month – were postal delays a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 27 (TC)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472263
Self Assessment – fixed penalty for late return – reasonable excuse – no
[2012] UKFTT 499 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.466093
Appeal against penalty – error in filing PAYE return – no reasonable excuse – taxpayer not aware of error until penalty notice received – penalty notice covering four months – penalty confirmed – appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 226 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.443011
