Koenigsberger v Mellor (Inspector of Taxes): CA 15 May 1995

External Lloyds name does not get retirement annuity relief on underwriting profit.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-May-1995

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 619-1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromKoenigsberger 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. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toKoenigsberger 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.82827

Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes): CA 1 May 1995

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.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-May-1995, Times 17-Mar-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toEarlspring 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.

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80212

Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre (Horticulture): CA 31 May 1995

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.

Judges:

Nourse, Kennedy and Beldam LJJ

Citations:

Times 31-May-1995, Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 19-Jun-1995, (1995) 67 TC 401

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromGray (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. . .
CitedInland 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. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toGray (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. . .
CitedLingfield 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80986

Wilkes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – High Income Child Benefit (HICN) Charge): FTTTx 15 Jun 2020

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

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 256 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652297

Budhdeo and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax : Directions To Recover Paye Income Tax From Individuals): FTTTx 17 Apr 2020

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

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 193 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.651565

Roeen v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 6 Nov 2018

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

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 652 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632415

Dumitrascu v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Profits): FTTTx 25 Sep 2018

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.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 553 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632299

Haughton v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment): FTTTx 26 Sep 2018

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

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 560 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632302

Parsons v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Double Taxation): FTTTx 16 Aug 2018

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.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 485 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632267

Bird and Another v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 3 Nov 2008

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.

Citations:

[2008] UKSPC SPC00720

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.278757

Kirkwood (Inspector of Taxes) v Evans: ChD 25 Jan 2002

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.

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

Gazette 06-Mar-2002, Times 05-Feb-2002

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 198(1) and (1A), Schedule 12, Finance Act 1998 61(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.167554

Rahman v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Penalties for Late Payment): FTTTx 5 Feb 2021

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.

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 32 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661773

Williams v Singer and Others Pool v Royal Exchange Assurance: HL 17 May 1920

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.

Citations:

[1920] UKHL 380, 59 SLR 380

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631532

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby and Another: CA 6 Jan 1995

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.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-1995, Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995, Times 06-Jan-1995

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739-741

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toInland 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. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromInland 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82365

In Re Mcguckian: QBD 12 May 1999

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.

Citations:

Times 12-May-1999

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82052

Odey Asset Management Llp v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Tax Effects of A Partnership Incentive Plan): FTTTx 4 Feb 2021

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

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 31 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661768

Clipperton and Another v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Settlements Legislation): FTTTx 20 Jan 2021

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

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 12 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661733

Foundation Partners (Gp) (A Firm) v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Partnership Established for Purposes of Constructing A Building In Montenegro): FTTTx 26 Jan 2021

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

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 18 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661736

Harrison and Anir (T/A Harrison Solway Logistics Ltd) v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income): FTTTx 31 Jan 2019

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.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 72 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.635667

Hundal v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Jul 2018

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

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 469 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.622380

Re Hurren (a bankrupt): ChD 1983

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.’

Judges:

Walton J

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 183

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSingh 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.

Insolvency, Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.564437

Re a Debtor, ex parte the Debtor v Dodwell: ChD 1949

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.

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1949] Ch 236

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSingh 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.

Insolvency, Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.564436

Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another: SC 11 May 2011

No re-opening after closure notices

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.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson

Citations:

[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

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970 28B, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 118ZA

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCITTower 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 ChDTower 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 CARevenue 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 by:

CitedUBS 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 . .
CitedJJ 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.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.439647

Balgobin and Others (T/A Sunny Lodge) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Nov 2010

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

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 537 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.426653

Timpsons Executors v Yerbury: CA 1936

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.

Citations:

(1936) 20 TC 155, [1936] 1 KB 645

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGrimm 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.183428

Barlow v Revenue and Customs (For Failure To Take Corrective Action Following Service of Follower Notice): FTTTx 30 Nov 2020

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.

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 486 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661797

Bateson v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Enhanced Pension Protection): FTTTx 29 Jan 2021

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

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 26 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661727

Perry-Smith v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 8 Nov 2018

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

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 659 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.632408

Vasco Properties Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 6 Nov 2018

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.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 653 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Income Tax

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.632419

Irving v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 6 Nov 2019

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

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 670 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.646891

Armstrong v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 18 Jul 2018

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.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 404 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621408

Ralc Consulting Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Pay As You Earn – National Insurance): FTTTx 29 Oct 2019

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

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 703 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.646873

Innvotec 6 Llp v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Relief for Expenditure On Qualifying Film): FTTTx 28 Jan 2019

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

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 66 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635668

Gulamhussein v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 25 Jan 2019

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.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 57 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635666

Maqbool and Another v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 26 Nov 2018

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

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 695 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.632402

Gammell v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Enhanced Pension Protection): FTTTx 24 Feb 2021

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

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 49 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661759

Beben v Revenue and Customs (Fixed and Daily Penalties for Late Filing): FTTTx 30 Nov 2020

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

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 485 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661798

Bentley v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Follower Notices – Necessary Corrective Action Not Taken): FTTTx 8 Jan 2021

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

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 5 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661729

The Suffolk Gate Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Apr 2013

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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 237 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491872

Manduca v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Apr 2013

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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 234 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491865

Percival v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Apr 2013

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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 240 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491868

Carter v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Apr 2013

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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 247 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491851

Flood v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Apr 2013

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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 251 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491858

Eclipse Generic Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Apr 2013

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.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 248 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491856

Draper v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Apr 2013

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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 239 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491855

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.

Judges:

Lord Reed, President, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales,Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows

Citations:

[2021] UKSC 17

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from (CA)Revenue and Customs v Tooth CA 15-May-2019
Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses. . .
At UTTCRevenue 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.662467

Burke v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Discovery Assessments): FTTTx 5 Feb 2021

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

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 33 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661754

Stringer v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Application To Make A Late Appeal): FTTTx 4 Dec 2020

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

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 491 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661821

Contractor v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Discovery Assessment – Tax Avoidance Scheme): FTTTx 23 Feb 2021

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

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 54 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661755

AB v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs TC: UTAA 6 Dec 2019

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)

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 410 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651674

Looney; Kieran Looney and Associates (A Firm) v Revenue and Customs:: UTTC 22 Apr 2020

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

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 119 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651190

Bluechipworld Sales and Marketing Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT, PAYE and NIC – Requirement To Give Security): FTTTx 22 Nov 2019

VAT, PAYE and NIC – Requirement to give security – Whether decisions ones that could not reasonably have been arrived at – No – Appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 705 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Income Tax, Taxes – Other

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.646879

Revenue and Customs v Tooth: CA 15 May 2019

Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses.

Judges:

Lord Justice Floyd

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 826

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Tooth UTTC 7-Feb-2018
INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – whether ‘discovery’ – whether insufficiency of tax brought about deliberately . .

Cited by:

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.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.637328

Revenue and Customs v Tooth: UTTC 7 Feb 2018

INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – whether ‘discovery’ – whether insufficiency of tax brought about deliberately

Judges:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Marcus Smith, Judge Charles Hellier

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 38 (TCC), [2018] BTC 505, [2018] STI 1052, [2018] STC 824

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Tooth CA 15-May-2019
Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses. . .
At UTTCRevenue 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.604789

The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation: 21 Nov 1932

(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.

Judges:

Gavan Duffy CJ and Dixon J

Citations:

(1932) 48 CLR 113, [1932] HCA 56

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedMcKnight (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.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.266054

Prince v Mapp (Inspector of Taxes): 1970

Citations:

[1970] 1WLR 260, [1970] 46 TC 169

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMallalieu 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.266053

Robert Addie and Sons v Solicitor of Inland Revenue: 1875

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.’

Judges:

Lord Deas

Citations:

(1875) 2 R 431

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRevenue 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.251451

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Marine Steam Turbine Co. Ltd: 1920

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’.

Judges:

Rowlatt J

Citations:

[1920] 1 KB 193

Statutes:

Finance (No. 2) Act 1915

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGE 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.236666

Thomson v Moyse: HL 1958

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.

Judges:

Lords Reid, Denning, Lord Radcliffe, Viscount Simmonds, Lord Cohen, Lord Tucker

Citations:

(1958) 39 TC 291

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGrimm 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 . .
CitedHarmel 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.

Income Tax

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183430

HFFX Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Whether Amounts Were Partnership Profits): FTTTx 8 Feb 2021

INCOME TAX – whether amounts were partnership profits – appeals allowed – whether amounts taxable under s687 ITTOIA 2005 – yes – whether discovery stale – no – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 36 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661762

Henderson v Revenue and Customs (Fixed Penalty for Late Filing): FTTTx 30 Nov 2020

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

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 484 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.661799