INCOME TAX – loan interest relief disallowed- whether open to HMRC to issue discovery assessments – appeal dismissed
Citations:
[2020] UKFTT 266 (TC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Income Tax
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.652286
INCOME TAX – loan interest relief disallowed- whether open to HMRC to issue discovery assessments – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 266 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.652286
INCOME TAX – failure to deduct PAYE – whether determinations properly made – yes – whether penalty assessments correctly made – yes – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 244 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.652287
External Lloyds name does not get retirement annuity relief on underwriting profit.
Ind Summary 15-May-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 619-1
England and Wales
Appeal from – Koenigsberger v Mellor (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-May-1993
Premiums which had been paid were not relevant earnings for annuity relief purposes. It was not income derived from the any trade or profession. . .
Appealed to – Koenigsberger v Mellor (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-May-1993
Premiums which had been paid were not relevant earnings for annuity relief purposes. It was not income derived from the any trade or profession. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.82827
A close company has an additional obligation to notify the Revenue that a loan was chargeable to tax, and in default, it was liable for interest.
Ind Summary 01-May-1995, Times 17-Mar-1995
England and Wales
Appeal from – Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .
Appealed to – Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80212
A ‘Planteria’ for the growing and storage of plants pending sale was premises, or a building, and not plant; no allowance was available. In considering the appeal, ‘the question for this Court, as it was for the Judge, is whether the facts found by the Commissioners are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the decision to which the Commissioners came or, if you prefer it in the other form, whether their decision is contradicted by the true and only reasonable conclusion from the facts found.’ As to the decision of whether an item constituted plant: ‘The essential question here is whether the structure which is the taxpayer’s planteria can reasonably be called apparatus with which their trade is carried on as opposed to premises in which it is carried on, it being established that a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of falling into the former category.
Nourse, Kennedy and Beldam LJJ
Times 31-May-1995, Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 19-Jun-1995, (1995) 67 TC 401
Capital Allowances Act 1990 22
England and Wales
Appeal from – Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre Chd 10-May-1993
A glasshouse ‘planteria’ which was used to show plants in a garden centre, was premises and not plant for capital allowances purposes. . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd 1969
Even a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of being plant. In this case a dry dock was used in trade of ship builders, ship repairers and marine engineers. . .
Appealed to – Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre Chd 10-May-1993
A glasshouse ‘planteria’ which was used to show plants in a garden centre, was premises and not plant for capital allowances purposes. . .
Cited – Lingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80986
Taxpayer had liability but did not complete a tax return – HMRC discovered HICB charge liability and raised discovery assessment under s29(1)(a) TMA 1970 – was there discovery that income which ought to have been assessed to income tax had not been assessed? – held: no, as HICBC charge was a self-standing liability to income tax, not income assessable to income tax – assessment invalid – appeal allowed
[2020] UKFTT 256 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652297
INCOME TAX – directions to recover PAYE income tax from individuals – whether Appellants were aware that employer had wilfully failed to deduct PAYE – whether 20 year extended time limit for assessments applied – Regulation 72, Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003
[2020] UKFTT 193 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.651565
Income tax – penalty for late filing of returns – late appeal – permission to appeal late – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal discussed.
[2019] UKFTT 697 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.646889
[2019] UKFTT 539 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.641334
INCOME TAX – penalty for failure to make payment on time – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 585 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632336
INCOME TAX – compensation for mis-sold interest Rate Hedging Products basic redress and interest- whether income or capital – whether taxable
[2018] UKFTT 600 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632338
Application for admission of a late appeal – late payment penalties – PPN – Martland applied – application refused
[2018] UKFTT 544 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632305
INCOME TAX – penalties for late filing of tax return and late payment of income tax – whether or not taxpayer had reasonable excuse – held not
[2018] UKFTT 539 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632306
INCOME TAX – self assessment – late filing penalties – whether a Notice to File was served – yes – whether the Appellant was under a duty to file a return – yes – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for his delay – no – appeal dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 652 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632415
INCOME TAX – late filing penalties – individual returns – whether reasonable excuse – no – partnership returns – whether in partnership – no – appeal partly dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 602 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632335
INCOME TAX and NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – return amended by closure notice to remove most of deduction for payments to sub-contractors and all amounts said to have been suffered by appellant under the CIS scheme agreed not to have been suffered – whether deductions for payments made allowable – whether turnover should be reduced on account of fictitious CIS amounts deducted which were nevertheless added to turnover by the appellant – appeal allowed.
[2018] UKFTT 553 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632299
Appeal against an assessment to recover an over-repayment of income tax following the failure by the Respondents properly to record information contained in a paper return -reliance placed on the terms of an extra-statutory concession and, more generally, on the behaviour of the Respondents’ officers and the fact that the repayment has been spent – jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal considered – appeal dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 560 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632302
INCOME TAX – repayment claims by non-resident – personal allowances s 56 ITA 2007 – claims under s 788 ICTA 1988 and s 6 TIOPA – whether reasonable excuse for late claims in some years – Raftopoulou applied – whether in date claims refused had been enquired into – Portland Gas and Raftopoulou considered.
INCOME TAX – penalties for late filing of returns – whether returns delivered before the due date.
[2018] UKFTT 485 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632267
SCIT INCOME TAX – Settlement – Company owned by husband and wife – Allotment of shares in company to their minor children on subscription at par – Payment of dividends to children – Whether settlement by virtue or in consequence of which dividends were paid within meaning of Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ss. 660A(1) and 660G(1) – Yes – Appeal dismissed.
ASSESSMENT – Extended time limits – Negligent conduct – Husband and wife owned all shares in company – Husband and wife allowed minor children to subscribe for shares at par – Dividends paid to daughters – Whether husband and wife were negligent in omitting daughters’ dividends as dividend income of husband and wife in their tax returns – No.
[2008] UKSPC SPC00720
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.278757
The taxpayer was obliged to visit an office in Leeds once a week. He lived in Norfolk. He sought to set off the travel expenses against his schedule E Income Tax. As a home worker, he also sought the expenses of maintaining an office at home. Both requirements were imposed by his employers as part of their home-working scheme.
Held: The tests for setting off such expenses were strict. To come within the new definition, the travelling expenses had to be incurred performing employment duties, but also attributable to the necessary attendance of the employee in the performance of those duties, and not to be excluded by the definitions of ordinary commuting or private travel. Under those definitions the travel was part of his ordinary commuting. The home expenses were not necessary for the employment because the home working scheme was optional.
Patten J
Gazette 06-Mar-2002, Times 05-Feb-2002
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 198(1) and (1A), Schedule 12, Finance Act 1998 61(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.167554
Amendments to employee share option schemes were due Inland revenue approval.
Times 08-Aug-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 135, 185
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.82360
Damages which had been recovered in the Lloyd’s litigation for negligent underwriting were subject to income tax as trading income.
Gazette 08-Nov-1995, Times 19-Oct-1995, Independent 18-Oct-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Sch D
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.79878
Income Tax – penalties for failure to deliver form P35
[2018] UKFTT 598 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.632340
INCOME TAX – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – penalties for late payment – whether taxpayer had a reasonable excuse for his late payment – appeal dismissed. Permission to appeal out of time – refused.
[2021] UKFTT 32 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661773
PROCEDURE – Income tax – whether to give permission for late appeal to be made – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed.
[2021] UKFTT 22 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661751
High Income Child Benefit Charge, reasonable excuse for failure to file return, appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 51 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661761
Taxation of rent receipts
[1900] UKHL TC – 4 – 265, [1900] 1 QB 192
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631504
Under the Income Tax Act 1853, section 2, Schedule D, British trustees acting under the marriage contract of a French lady resident abroad were assessed in respect of income from foreign securities and possessions paid to her abroad. In the second case the respondents, who were domiciled in the United Kingdom, were trustees under a will, and were assessed in respect of the income of foreign investments paid to a Swedish lady also resident abroad. Held that as the beneficiary in each case was domiciled and resident abroad the income in question was not liable for income tax merely because the legal ownership of the investments was in British trustees.
Decision of the Court of Appeal (1919, 2 K.B. 108) affirmed.
[1920] UKHL 380, 59 SLR 380
England and Wales
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631532
Anti-avoidance provisions do not catch a transfer of assets which were located abroad and which made at a time when the taxpayer was a non UK resident.
Gazette 08-Mar-1995, Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995, Times 06-Jan-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739-741
England and Wales
Appealed to – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby HL 16-Jul-1997
Rules which disallowed exemption from tax for the transfer of assets abroad in order to avoid income tax do not apply where the taxpayer is not ordinarily resident here. . .
Appeal from – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby HL 16-Jul-1997
Rules which disallowed exemption from tax for the transfer of assets abroad in order to avoid income tax do not apply where the taxpayer is not ordinarily resident here. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82365
When applying ex parte to a special commissioner for permission to make an extended time tax assessment, an inspector need not disclose all the circumstances of the case, but only those which were necessary to allow the commissioner to judge whether there was a loss.
Times 12-May-1999
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82052
INCOME TAX – tax effects of a partnership incentive plan – whether the appellants are taxable on sums allocated to a corporate member of Odey Asset Management LLP in the year of allocation – no – whether the appellants are taxable on sums received on reallocation of special capital to them in the year of receipt under s 687 ITTOIA 2005 (miscellaneous income) – yes – or under ss 773 to 778 ITA 2007 (sales of occupational income) – no – whether an amendment and various discovery amendments were made validly under s 29 and 30B TMA – appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 31 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661768
INCOME TAX – settlements legislation – chapter 5 Part 5 Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 – meaning of ‘settlement’ – meaning of ‘settlor’ – whether dividend or distribution taxable under s383 Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 12 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661733
INCOME TAX – partnership established for purposes of constructing a building in Montenegro – claims for sideways loss relief by partners – whether activities of Appellants amounted to a trade – if a trade, whether various payments were trading expenses – basis on which Appellants should calculate any trading loss – application of paragraph 51 of FRS 5 to Appellants’ accounts – ss 25, 26, 33, 34 ITTOIA 2005
[2021] UKFTT 18 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661736
INCOME TAX – late filing penalties – individual returns – whether reasonable excuse -no – appeal dismissed.
[2018] UKFTT 651 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.632417
Income Tax – Procedure – application to make a late appeal. Permission refused.
[2019] UKFTT 58 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.635664
INCOME TAX and NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – Benefits from availability of cars and use of fuel cards – whether Apollo Fuels applies because fair bargain – payments for private use – whether discovery assessments on directors met conditions in s 29 TMA – effect of discovery assessment where enquiry still in train – application of s 32 TMA – whether NICs decision on Class 1A correct – whether penalties under Schedule 24 FA 2007 apply – careless or deliberate or neither? – whether penalties under regulation 81 SSCR 2001 apply – income tax appeals allowed – NICs appeals allowed in part.
[2019] UKFTT 72 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.635667
Income Tax/Corporation Tax : INFORMATION NOTICES – notices to provide information and documents – whether items requested were reasonably required for the purposes of checking the Appellant’s tax position – yes – consideration of the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal in relation to information notices – appeal dismissed – appeals against penalties dismissed – applications for closure notices dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 469 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.622380
There might have been a surplus after paying the debts due to the Inland Revenue (the major creditor).
Held: The way forward was for the trustee to agree the tax liability with the Revenue but only with the consent of the bankrupt. Walton J said: ‘So in substance it is really a question between the bankrupt and the Revenue with the trustee holding a watching brief to see that neither of them makes any fatal errors.’
Walton J
[1983] 1 WLR 183
England and Wales
Cited – Singh v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 15-May-2010
UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.564437
Harman J held that it was for the bankrupt’s trustee alone to settle with the Crown in a case where the bankrupt had been discharged and there was no tax assessment.
Harman J
[1949] Ch 236
England and Wales
Cited – Singh v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 15-May-2010
UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.564436
INCOME TAX – Surcharge on late payment of income tax (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.59C) – Appeal allowed
[2012] UKFTT 97 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.451939
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
A resident in the United Kingdom was the life tenant under a trust administered in accordance with the law of the State of New York. She directed the trustees to pay out of the income to which she was entitled allowances to her children resident in England. The payments were made by way of bills of exchange drawn on London, payable to the child in question and posted to such child or his or her banker. She was assessed to tax in the United Kingdom on the amount of those allowances on the ground that they were her income and had been remitted to the United Kingdom.
Held: The assessment stood. The income represented by the bills of exchange was income to which the life tenant was entitled, though not received by her, when it came to the United Kingdom because the gift to the children was not complete prior to collection of the proceeds of the bills of exchange in the United Kingdom. She was liable for tax on the basis of entitlement not receipt. The Court left open the question of liability if the gift had been completed outside the United Kingdom.
(1936) 20 TC 155, [1936] 1 KB 645
England and Wales
Cited – Grimm v Newman Chantry Vellacott DFK CA 7-Nov-2002
Accountants appealed a finding of professional negligence. They had advised an american resident in Britain that he could transfer assets to his wife here without adverse tax consequences. At the trial the judge had considered an alternative scheme . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.183428
Income Tax – penalty under s 208 FA 2014 for failure to take corrective action following service of Follower Notice: (a) taxpayer advised that scheme worked – was it reasonable in all the circumstances not to take corrective action, (b) reduction in penalty under s 210.
[2020] UKFTT 486 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661797
Income tax – Schedule 36 information notice – failure to comply – penalties – reasonable excuse- appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 64 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661780
INCOME TAX – ENHANCED PENSION PROTECTION — application made years late – taxpayer believed Lifetime Allowance inapplicable to him – no advice taken nor further enquiries made – not objectively reasonable – no reasonable excuse found – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 26 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661727
INCOME TAX – penalty for failure to make returns – director registered for self-assessment – whether required to make returns issued under s8 TMA – yes – whether return validly issued – yes – whether returns should have been withdrawn – no – whether reasonable excuse for late filing – no
[2018] UKFTT 659 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.632408
INCOME TAX and NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – PAYE and Class 1 NICs – Penalties for late returns by employer of payments of earnings to employees in ‘real time’ – whether returns for dates in two tax months delivered late: held no, HMRC failed to prove returns were late – appeals allowed.
[2018] UKFTT 653 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.632419
Penalties – late payment – Sch.56 of FA 2009 – No UTR – never completed a tax return –whether a reasonable excuse – whether special circumstances – no -appeal dismissed in part -reduction in penalty
[2019] UKFTT 670 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.646891
INCOME TAX – penalties for failure to file tax return – taxpayer signed up for paperless contact and for notices to a secure mailbox on HMRC website – Effect of Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2003 and directions of HMRC made under them – appeal allowed.
[2018] UKFTT 404 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621408
INCOME TAX – PAY AS YOU EARN – NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – Intermediaries Legislation – IR35 – Personal Service Companies (PSC) – s.49 of the Income Tax (Pay As you Earn) Act 2003 (ITEPA) – Determinations under Regulation 80 of the ITEPA Regulations 2003 – Provision of IT consultancy services – notional or hypothetical contracts to be constructed —four links in chain between Mr Alcock, the Appellant PSC (RALC), the agencies (Networkers and Capita) and end clients (DWP or Accenture) – notional contracts of service (employment) or contracts for services (self-employed) – Ready Mixed Concrete Test – four year time limit under s. 34 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA) – carelessness of Appellant or its adviser under s. 118 of the TMA – extended time limits of six years under s. 36(1) or (1B) TMA – appeal allowed
[2019] UKFTT 703 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.646873
INCOME TAX – Payment of redress for mis-sold interest rate hedging products – Penalty for failure to declare payment in tax return (FA 2007 Sch 24) – Special circumstances
[2019] UKFTT 42 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635671
INCOME TAX – failure to file returns by due date – Schedule 55 FA 2009 – change of address – HMRC not informed – whether reasonable excuse – No – appeal dismissed
[2019] UKFTT 672 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.646878
Income tax – 100% relief for expenditure on qualifying film – s 42 Finance (No 2) Act 1992 and s 48 Finance (No 2) Act 1997 – delay in obtaining certificate as to status of film – whether claim made out of time – alternative claim for subsequent year under s 140 Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 – whether allocation of expenditure to relevant year made out of time – whether valid provisional claim made – whether certification of film by Hungarian authorities under European Convention on Cinematic Co-production sufficient – appeal dismissed
[2019] UKFTT 66 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635668
INCOME TAX – penalties under Schedule 56 FA 2009 for not paying tax by relevant date – interaction with failure to notify liability in time – whether reasonable excuse: yes, but once it ceased not remedied without unreasonable delay – appeal dismissed.
[2019] UKFTT 57 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635666
Income tax – Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 – fixed and daily penalties for partnership’s failure to file self-assessment return on time – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 695 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.632402
Income Tax, Schedule D-Foreign dividends not remitted to United Kingdom -British trustees of foreign beneficiaries.
7 TC 387
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.631520
the meaning of ‘relevant discounted securities’ as defined by schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996
[2009] EWCA Civ 1010, [2009] STI 2745, [2009] BTC 631
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.375938
[2007] EWHC 871 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.253561
INCOME TAX – ENHANCED PENSION PROTECTION — application made years late – reasonable excuse accepted by HMRC but post excuse delay alleged – taxpayer remained reliant on advice – objectively reasonable – reasonable excuse found – appeal allowed
[2021] UKFTT 49 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661759
Income tax – fixed and daily penalties for late filing of self-assessment return – Appellant asserts that she relied on an agent to file the return, that her knowledge of English is limited and that she was unaware of her obligations – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal refused
[2020] UKFTT 485 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661798
INCOME TAX – follower notices – necessary corrective action not taken – penalties for that failure – not reasonable in all the circumstances not to have taken corrective action – penalties reduced – appeal allowed to that extent
[2021] UKFTT 5 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661729
Income Tax – whether reasonable excuse for late filing penalties under section 56 FA2009 – No – Whether special circumstances for reduction of penalties – No – Appeal Dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 211 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651610
FTTTx PAYE – 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 – whether penalty was unfair – no- appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 237 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491872
FTTTX INCOME TAX – payments treated as earnings – employee share option – gain on purported exercise by employee – ‘due amount’ of tax accounted for to HMRC by employer – whether ‘due amount’ to be treated as earnings of employee – no – IT(EP)A 2003 s.222
[2013] UKFTT 252 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491866
FTTTx Income tax – Appeal against closure notice – ‘Investment bonus’ to be paid to hedge fund managers in connection with the transfer of management of the hedge fund from one company to another – Whether payment a capital sum – In the circumstances, no – Appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 234 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491865
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Taxpayer a British national resident in the Republic of Ireland – taxed in the UK on a civil service pension by virtue of Article 18 UK/Irish Double Taxation Convention – taxpayer’s wife an Irish national taxed on UK local authority pension in Ireland – taxpayer taxed less favourably in the UK than if taxed as his wife in Ireland – whether Article 18 DTC compatible with EU law – discrimination on grounds of nationality – whether Article 18 DTC compatible with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights – construction of Article 23(1) of the DTC (non-discrimination clause) – appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 240 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491868
FTTTx Appeal against amendment to Appellants tax return for 2003-04 and assessments for 1998-99 to 2002-03 and 2006-07 including penalties – property business and gardening business – deduction claimed for capital repayments in property business – accepted as incorrect but Appellant not negligent and not liable for penalties to that extent – garden business showed cash deficit – could this be explained otherwise than by reference to under declarations of income – Appellant’s explanations allowed in part – in part Appellant failed to discharge this conclusion – presumption of continuance for previous and later years accepted but on the basis of reduced under declaration – Appellant failed to keep adequate records and was negligent and Respondent’s method of calculating penalties accepted – Appeal allowed in part
[2013] UKFTT 247 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491851
FTTTX INCOME TAX – PAYE – Extra-Statutory Concession A19 – Underpayments of tax – Appellant with two employments – Subsequent adjustments to recover underpayments – Appellant’s claim to have received wrong coding instructions – Whether Tribunal can direct HMRC not to collect the underpaid tax – No – Tribunal has no authority to enforce compliance with Extra-Statutory Concession – Appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 251 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491858
FTTTx INCOME TAX – penalty for late submission of P35 – disputes as to the facts – Tribunal making further findings of fact – whether HMRC had sent out a ‘failed transmission notice’ – no – whether company reasonably believed the return had been filed on time – yes – appeal allowed.
[2013] UKFTT 248 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491856
FTTTx INCOME TAX – PENALTY FOR LATE FILING OF END OF YEAR PAYE RETURN – Whether the Appellant filed the return on time – No – Did the Appellant have a reasonable excuse for default – Yes – Appeal allowed.
[2013] UKFTT 238 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491853
FTTTx INCOME TAX – PENALTY AND SURCHARGE – HMRC conceded the Appeals on surcharges and second late filing penalty for 2001/02 and late filing penalties for 2003/04 – first late filing penalty for 2001/02 cancelled – surcharges for 2003/04 confirmed – Appeal allowed in part
[2013] UKFTT 239 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491855
FTTTX INCOME TAX – PENALTY FOR LATE FILING OF END OF YEAR PAYE RETURN – Whether the Appellant filed the return on time – No – Did the Appellant have a reasonable excuse for default – No – Appeal dismissed.
[2013] UKFTT 235 (TC)
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491854
[1946] UKPC 51
Canada
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.447980
Issues of general importance about the power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (in this context ‘the Revenue’) to make what is generally known as a discovery assessment.
Lord Reed, President, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales,Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows
[2021] UKSC 17
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales
Appeal from (CA) – Revenue and Customs v Tooth CA 15-May-2019
Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses. . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v Tooth UTTC 7-Feb-2018
INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – whether ‘discovery’ – whether insufficiency of tax brought about deliberately . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.662467
INCOME TAX – discovery assessments – whether or not there was a discovery for each of the relevant years – yes – whether or not the appellant’s agents’ role affected the position – no – penalties – whether or not the appellant was careless – yes – whether or not the penalties should be reduced – yes to the extent agreed by the parties – appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 33 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661754
INCOME TAX – discovery assessments – valid – reduced – appeal allowed to that extent
[2020] UKFTT 512 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661824
Income Tax – application to make a late appeal – fixed and daily penalties for the late filing of individual SA return – significant delay in submitting return – appellant asserts that she was depressed and received no income during the default year – delay in submitting appeal against the penalties – whether reasonable excuse for delay in appealing – on the facts, no – application for permission to make a late appeal refused
[2020] UKFTT 491 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661821
INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – tax avoidance scheme – ground of appeal against the quantum of assessment and not the efficacy of the scheme – ss 29 and 34 of Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether assessment validly made – pre-condition under s 29(5) -whether a hypothetical officer could have been reasonably expected to be aware of the insufficiency from the information made available; no – whether assessment stands good; yes – onus for displacing assessment regarding quantum on the appellant – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 54 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661755
(Tax Credits and Family Credit – Other)
[2019] UKUT 386 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651682
Tax credits – ‘Main responsibility’ – Held that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the person who was the contact point for the children’s school, GP and dentist was ultimately determinative as the person who had the main responsibility was an error of law for the reasons in paragraph 8. The Judge directed the new tribunal to follow the approach set out by Judge Jacobs in paragraph 38 of PG v Commissioners of HMRC and NG (TC) [2016] UKUT 216 (AAC)
[2019] UKUT 410 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651674
Tax treatment of certain payments under management training contract – whether FTT erred in conclusion termination payment trading revenue receipt (consideration for cancellation of the contract to provide training) rather than capital (compensation for loss of a secret process in proprietary performance management system) – House of Lords’ decision in Evans Medical Supplies Ltd v Moriarty (H M Inspector of Taxes) ([1957] 37 TC 540) considered – no – whether FTT erred in conclusion other contractual payments gave rise to tax liability on appellant (as opposed, through a multiparty agreement, to other entities appellant owned) – no – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKUT 119 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651190
VAT, PAYE and NIC – Requirement to give security – Whether decisions ones that could not reasonably have been arrived at – No – Appeals dismissed
[2019] UKFTT 705 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.646879
Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses.
Lord Justice Floyd
[2019] EWCA Civ 826
England and Wales
Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Tooth UTTC 7-Feb-2018
INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – whether ‘discovery’ – whether insufficiency of tax brought about deliberately . .
Appeal from (CA) – Revenue and Customs v Tooth SC 14-May-2021
Issues of general importance about the power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (in this context ‘the Revenue’) to make what is generally known as a discovery assessment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.637328
INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – whether ‘discovery’ – whether insufficiency of tax brought about deliberately
The Honourable Mr. Justice Marcus Smith, Judge Charles Hellier
[2018] UKUT 38 (TCC), [2018] BTC 505, [2018] STI 1052, [2018] STC 824
England and Wales
Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Tooth CA 15-May-2019
Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses. . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v Tooth SC 14-May-2021
Issues of general importance about the power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (in this context ‘the Revenue’) to make what is generally known as a discovery assessment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.604789
(Victoria)
[1906] UKPC 75
Australia
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.419807
(High Court of Australia) The taxpayer newspaper sought to set off against its liability to income tax, sums which it had paid out in damages for defamation.
Held: They were deductible. Such claims against a newspaper are a ‘regular and almost unavoidable incident of publishing it’ and the damages are compensatory rather than punitive.
Gavan Duffy CJ and Dixon J
(1932) 48 CLR 113, [1932] HCA 56
Australia
Cited – McKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard HL 18-Jun-1999
The taxpayer sought to set off against tax some pounds 200,000 spent defending professional disciplinary proceedings. The House was asked whether this was ‘money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade.’
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.266054
[1970] 1WLR 260, [1970] 46 TC 169
England and Wales
Cited – Mallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.266053
When computing profits for tax purposes, the taxpayer is not allowed to deduct any sums for depreciation of capital assets. Lord Deas: ‘I think it is better not to run the risk of making any confusion in the grounds of judgment by adding anything to what your Lordship has said.’
Lord Deas
(1875) 2 R 431
England and Wales
Cited – Revenue and Customs v William Grant and Sons Distillers Ltd HL 28-Mar-2007
The Revenue appealed findings as to the calculation of profits for corporation tax. The companies had sought to deduct sums from profits for depreciation of unsold stock in accordance with current accounting standards.
Held: ‘the profit and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.251451
The respondent taxpayer company, had transferred to a third party its licence to exploit various patents for the manufacture of a marine steam turbine engine in return for the payment of a royalty on every engine sold by the third party and whose only business consisted of receiving the royalties, was not ‘carrying on a trade or business’ within the meaning of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1915.
Held: The word ‘business’ was used in the sense of ‘an active occupation or profession continuously carried on’.
Rowlatt J
[1920] 1 KB 193
England and Wales
Cited – GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton and Another CA 14-Dec-2005
The bank had entered into a master trading agreement with a trader under which the trader bought motor vehicles as agent for the bank for resale. The vehicles belonged to the bank. The defendant bought all the trader’s vehicles. The defendant now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.236666
A British subject resident in England but domiciled in the United States was the life tenant of trusts administered in accordance with the law of the State of New York. The income of the trusts was paid in US$ into the beneficiary’s bank account with a bank in New York. The beneficiary drew cheques on that account in favour of banks in England and instructed them to convert them into sterling and credit the sterling equivalent to the beneficiary’s account with that bank. The English bank sold the US$ to the Bank of England, as required by the Exchange Control legislation then in force, and credited the proceeds of sale in sterling to the beneficiary’s account in England. The beneficiary was assessed to tax under Case V of Schedule D. The Special Commissioners discharged the assessments on the grounds that the American income had not been brought into the United Kingdom. Their decision was upheld by Wynn-Parry J and a majority of the Court of Appeal.
Held: The House reinstated the assessments. The beneficiary had received sums ‘from money or value arising from property not imported’. The beneficiary was liable for the tax claimed on the grounds that the ‘bringing in’ of a person’s income means the effecting of its transmission from one country to the other by whatever means. It is neither here nor there to ask whether anything, items of property or instrument of transfer, has actually been brought into the country or not. No more is it relevant to know what has happened to the taxpayer’s money in the country where the income arises. Ex hypothesi he has transferred it – in this case the dollar credit – to the purchaser who is to provide him with sterling. What use the purchaser may make of the dollars has no bearing on the question whether the taxpayer has received sums of sterling through remittance of his American income. The rule lists sources from which sums to be computed may have been received; and this additional wording has caused some of the mystificationin this branch of the law. These several instances of the way in which income may be remitted have been thought to limit the generality of the phrase ‘ actual sums received in the United Kingdom’. It was not intended to say in effect that whereas under Case IV all sums of foreign income were to be computable, if received in the United Kingdom, under Case V only those sums of income received were to be computable which were attributable to the specified operations or sources. There could be no reason for such a distinction. The sub-heads should be treated as illustrationsand construed generally.
Lords Reid, Denning, Lord Radcliffe, Viscount Simmonds, Lord Cohen, Lord Tucker
(1958) 39 TC 291
England and Wales
Cited – Grimm v Newman Chantry Vellacott DFK CA 7-Nov-2002
Accountants appealed a finding of professional negligence. They had advised an american resident in Britain that he could transfer assets to his wife here without adverse tax consequences. At the trial the judge had considered an alternative scheme . .
Cited – Harmel v Wright ChD 1973
The taxpayer was domiciled in South Africa but resident in England. Before he came to England he arranged for the incorporation of two companies, Artemis Ltd and Lodestar Ltd. Artemis was controlled by the taxpayer but Lodestar, in which he had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183430
INCOME TAX – whether amounts were partnership profits – appeals allowed – whether amounts taxable under s687 ITTOIA 2005 – yes – whether discovery stale – no – appeals dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 36 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661762
Income tax – Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 – fixed penalty for late filing of self-assessment return – Appellant not self-employed but issued with notice to file together with an explanation that this was because of an underpayment of PAYE in an earlier year – he nonetheless failed to file his return until after the filing date – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 484 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661799
INCOME TAX – penalty for failure to make returns – reasonable excuse – special circumstances – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 40 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661763
INCOME TAX – unauthorised payments from registered pension scheme – whether HMRC have power to assess scheme sanction charge – yes – whether taxpayer careless – no – whether scheme sanction charge should be set aside – no
[2020] UKUT 120 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.651194
PAYE – Self Assessment – Discovery assessments – penalties for failure to notify – taxable source of funds – gambling – record keeping obligations – appeal allowed
[2020] UKFTT 82 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.649134