The Scottish North American Trust, Ltd v Farmer (Surveyor of Taxes): HL 14 Dec 1911

A financial and investment company which has obtained in the course of its business, for the purpose of paying for securities purchased by it, loans from bankers in New York for periods not exceeding six months, is entitled, in striking its balance of profits for the purpose of income tax, to deduct the interest paid on such loans, which are not to be regarded as additional capital.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 114, 49 SLR 114

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Income Tax

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.619226

Twaite v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Jul 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Pension Scheme) INCOME TAX – pensions – late notification of enhanced protection – reliance upon an adviser – failure to advise of the need for enhanced protection – whether or not a reasonable excuse for late notification – yes – whether or not the notification was given without unreasonable delay after the reasonable excuse ceased – eleven months – unreasonable delay – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 591 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592624

Bolger (T/A JMJ Electrical) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Aug 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty) CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – penalty for failure to make returns- whether appellant had withdrawn from the scheme before the date for which penalties were levied – No. Whether reasonable excuse for late returns – No. Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 627 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592632

Regina v Commissioner of Taxes, ex parte Hooper: QBD 1915

The court considered what it was for the Revenue to ‘discover’. It accepted previous judicial statements that ‘discover’ means ‘comes to the conclusion from the examination it makes and from any information it may choose to receive’ or ‘has reason to believe’ or ‘satisfies himself’. Lord Reading CJ said: ‘The surveyor may be mistaken in the ‘discovery’, but if there is information before him which he could, and did honestly believe the person to be liable to the duties, the only remedy is by the appeal prescribed by the Statutes.’ and
‘there must be information before the surveyor which would enable him, acting honestly, to come to the conclusion that a person is chargeable.’

Judges:

Lord Reading CJ

Citations:

[1915] 7 TC 59

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMomin and others v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 15-Jun-2007
The appellants challenged an assessment to income tax, saying that they had not been supported by a bona fide discovery of any loss of tax, and was otherwise unsupported by evidence.
Held: ‘The appellants have over a period of many years . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.267647

Dr Samad Samadian v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 15 Jan 2014

UTTC Deduction of travel expenses – medical practitioner in private practice – travel between office at home and place of business – travel between other locations and place of business – whether ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purposes of a trade or profession – section 74 ICTA 1988 – section 34 ITTOIA 2005

Citations:

[2014] UKUT 13 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.520996

HM Revenue and Customs v Healy: UTTC 25 Jul 2013

UTTC Income Tax – deductions for rent payable under tenancy agreement for a nine month period whilst actor appeared in stage production – were these wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of his profession – incorrect test applied by First-tier Tribunal – case remitted

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 337 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.521002

Duckmanton v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 4 Jul 2013

UTTC Income Tax – whether legal costs incurred by Appellant in defending criminal charges were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of his trade – ‘purpose’ and ‘effect’ of incurring expenditure distinguished – s 74 ICTA 1988 and s 34 ITTIOA 2005 – question answered in negative by First-tier Tribunal – no error of law in determination of the FTT – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 305 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.513616

Keslake v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 7 Oct 2020

INCOME TAX – HIGH INCOME CHILD BENEFIT CHARGE (HICBC) — taxpayer with liability did not complete tax returns – Discovery assessments under s29(1)(a) TMA 1970 – ‘income’ assessable to income tax? – purposive construction applied to statute – no reasonable excuse found exonerating taxpayer’s delay – appeal against penalties dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 394 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.655334

Mcdonnell v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Fixed and Daily Penalties): FTTTx 23 Nov 2018

Income tax – fixed and daily penalties for late filing of self-assessment return – Appellant paid PAYE – claimed that she had no need to file a return and that this had been agreed by HMRC – self-assessment return required because of expenses claim – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 692 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.632406

Van Der Weegen and Others v Belgische Staat: ECJ 8 Jun 2017

ECJ (Tax Legislation – Income Tax : Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 56 TFEU – Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area – Tax legislation – Income tax – Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by banks complying with certain statutory conditions – Indirect discrimination – Banks established in Belgium and banks established in another Member State

Citations:

C-580/15, [2017] EUECJ C-580/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Income Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588307

Zhang v Revenue and Customs (Application for Permission To Appeal – Appeal To HMRC Out of Time): FTTTx 27 Oct 2020

Procedure – application for permission to appeal – appeal to HMRC out of time – whether reasonable excuse – Income tax – Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 – fixed and daily penalties for failure to file self-assessment returns for 3 years and late payment penalties – appeal to HMRC out of time – Martland considered – Application refused

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 425 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.655360

Colquhoun (Surveyor of Taxes) v Brooks: HL 9 Aug 1889

Income Tax. Trade carried on Abroad. Foreign Possessions. A person resident in this country is partner in a firm engaged in a trade carried on entirely out of the United Kingdom. Held, That his partnership is a foreign or colonial possession chargeable under the ith Case of Schedule D., and consequently he in liable only in respect of so much of the profit accruing to him at is remitted to this country.

Citations:

[1889] UKHL TC – 2 – 490, 2 TC 490

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.635175

Statham v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Aug 2018

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment – Discovery assessment – s 29 TMA 1970 – underdeclared employment income – whether discovery made – whether information made available to HMRC – whether assessment cancelled by repayment of disputed tax

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 512 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.632280

Newton v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Aug 2018

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other – INCOME TAX – check into income tax position – notice under paragraph 1 Schedule 36 FA 2008 – whether officer had ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ underassessment: no, as not supported by any evidence – whether certain items statutory records: no, as the time limit had passed – notice set aside.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 513 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.632262

Bailey v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Mar 2012

FTTTx Income tax – employer’s annual return for 2009-10 – penalty for delayed submission – no attempt made to submit the return until penalty notice received in September 2010 – return then delivered promptly – simple oversight – andpound;500 penalty imposed, of which appellant paid andpound;100 without dispute – no reasonable excuse – whether penalty disproportionate – on the evidence supplied, no – penalty clearly harsh, but not ‘plainly unfair’ – whether appeal should be allowed on basis of principle set out in HOK Limited v HMRC – held no – appeal dismissed – directions given to enable any appeal to wait on the outcome of the appeal to the Upper Tribunal in HOK Limited v HMRC

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 186 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.462595

Brown (T/A Heavenly Beauty Salon) v Revenue & Customs: FTTTx 11 Oct 2013

FTTTx PAYE – late submission of Employer’s Annual Return – whether scale of penalty is reasonable, and whether penalty is unfair and should be reduced – Decision of Upper Tribunal in Hok Ltd applies. Whether there was reasonable excuse for late submission of return – No.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 565 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.516889

Beckwith v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Mar 2012

Income tax – Notice issued under Sch 36 FA 2008 – whether taxpayer’s private bank statements were ‘statutory records’ – on the facts, yes – appeal against that part of the Notice struck out – whether other information in the Notice ‘reasonably required’ for the purposes of checking the taxpayer’s tax position – yes – appeal against that part of the Notice dismissed – fixed and daily penalties for non-compliance with the Sch 36 Notice – whether taxpayer had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance – no – appeal against penalties dismissed and penalties confirmed.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 181 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.462596

Revenue and Customs v Martin: UTTC 22 Sep 2014

INCOME TAX – Liability of employee under his employment contract to refund a proportion of a taxable Signing Bonus when the employee gave notice to resign prior to the end of the period for which the employee had committed to remain an employee – whether Signing Bonus ‘earnings’; whether repayment ‘negative Taxable Earnings’ – Yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKUT 429 (TCC), [2015] STC 478, [2014] STI 3021, [2014] BTC 527

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.537626

Inland Revenue v Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, and Co: HL 7 Jul 1913

The Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, sec. 44 (2), directs that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall prepare and keep corrected a register showing the annual licence value of all fully licensed premises, and that ‘in estimating for that purpose the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises used for purposes other than the sale of intoxicating liquor’ no increased value arising from profits not derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be taken into consideration.’
Held (1) the words ‘other premises’ include a public-house used substantially for other purposes than the sale of intoxicants; (2) the words ‘increased value’ mean such value as arises from the additional profits made on the sale of non-intoxicants due to their sale on licensed premises, not the value of the whole profits on the sale of non-intoxicants.
Appeal sustained on the first point; dismissed on the second.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Haldane), Earl Loreburn, and Lords Atkinson, Shaw, Moulton, and Parker

Citations:

[1913] UKHL 537, 51 SLR 537

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.632748

Balti Hut (Gloucester) Ltd and Mr Ali v Revenue and Customs (Vat – Assessments : Other): FTTTx 21 Mar 2017

VAT and INCOME TAX – quantum – previous decision in principle allowing the appeals in part – parties unable to agree exact figures – determination by Tribunal of exact figures – taxpayers contending that method directed by Tribunal resulted in ‘negative assessments’ for certain periods, which should be aggregated with assessments for other periods to produce a net result –
Held: No – exact figures for VAT, income tax and penalties determined

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 231 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Income Tax

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581657

Icebreaker 1 Llp v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 26 Jan 2011

Income Tax – whether expenditure constituted allowable deductions under section 74 of the ICTA 1988 – proper construction and application of section 74 – construction of film exploitation documentation

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 477 (TCC), [2011] STC 1078, [2011] BTC 1579, [2011] STI 372

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.440795

Wiseman v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – High Income Child Benefit Charge): FTTTx 29 Sep 2020

INCOME TAX – High Income Child Benefit Charge – section 681B ITEPA 2003 – Discovery Assessment – section 29(1)(a) of Taxes Management Act 1970 – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 383 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 29(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.655318

Mcnaughton v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Permission To Make A Late Appeal): FTTTx 14 Aug 2020

INCOME TAX – Permission to make a late appeal – section 49 Taxes Management Act 1970 – penalties for late filing of tax returns – Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 – reasonable excuse – special circumstances

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 332 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.654091

Murgasanu v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Oct 2020

INCOME TAX – permission to make late appeal – finding of fact that appellant had not filed the return on paper within the time limit – relevant case law on late appeals considered and applied – permission refused

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 401 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMartland v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (Tax) UTTC 1-Jun-2018
Exercise of Discretion to hear Late Appeals
Excise Duty – assessment to duty and wrongdoing penalty – application for permission to make late appeal – test to be applied – appeal dismissed
The tribunal discussed the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal to allow an appeal to be made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.655342

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992

Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute

The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the cost to the employer, or the cost of a school place. Debates in Parliament had discussed this issue, and the parties sought to refer to the debate.
Held: It was not an impeachment of Parliament or an infringement of the Bill of Rights to examine Hansard to resolve issues provided the legislation was ambiguous, obscure or suffered an absurdity, and the material referred to comprised statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill or supporting material, and the statements referred to were themselves clear. Having so referred to Hansard in this case, the taxable cost was the additional marginal cost of providing the service, the profit the school would normally have made.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson commented on the object of article 9: ‘Article 9 is a provision of the highest constitutional importance and should not be narrowly construed. It ensures the ability of democratically elected Members of Parliament to discuss what they will (freedom of debate) and to say what they will (freedom of speech) . . In my judgment, the plain meaning of article 9, viewed against the historical background in which it was enacted, was to ensure that Members of Parliament were not subjected to any penalty, civil or criminal, for what they said and were able, contrary to the previous assertions of the Stuart monarchy, to discuss what they, as opposed to the monarch, chose to have discussed.’
And: ‘I find it impossible to attach the breadth of meaning to the word ‘question’ which the Attorney-General urges. It must be remembered that article 9 prohibits questioning not only ‘in any court’ but also in any ‘place out of Parliament.’ If the Attorney-General’s submission is correct, any comment in the media or elsewhere on what is said in Parliament would constitute ‘questioning’ since all Members of Parliament must speak and act taking into account what political commentators and other will say.’
Given that I do not have to determine for the purposes of my ruling precisely what is meant by ‘place out of Parliament’, I cannot, especially in the light of the Court of Appeal’s statement in Hamilton, construe Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s words as the Claimants suggest. I note also that they were said when rejecting the Attorney General’s submission on a wide meaning of the word ‘question’ and that there appears to have been no argument in Pepper v Hart as to the meaning of ‘place out of Parliament’.

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Emslie, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Mackay of Clashfern L.C., Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner

Citations:

[1992] 3 WLR 1032, [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 42, [1992] UKHL 3, [1993] IRLR 33, [1993] RVR 127, [1992] STC 898, [1993] ICR 291

Links:

lip, Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1976 23 61 63, Bill of Rights 1688 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedPickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
AppliedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
ConsideredDavis v Johnson HL 2-Jan-1978
The court was asked to interpret the 1976 Act to see whether its protection extended to cohabitees as well as to wives. In doing so it had to look at practice in the Court of Appeal in having to follow precedent.
Held: The operation of the . .
ConsideredHadmor Productions Ltd v Hamilton HL 1982
The Court of Appeal was not in general entitled to reverse the decision of the Administrative Court in the grant of discretionary interlocutory relief: ‘it is I think appropriate to remind your Lordships of the limited function of an appellate court . .
OverruledRegina v Secretary of State for Trade, Ex parte Anderson Strathclyde Plc QBD 1983
A proposed takeover had been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the 1973 Act. A majority of the Commission recommended against the takeover. The Deputy (acting instead of the Secretary who had an interest) overruled the . .
CitedAsh v Abdy 1678
Lord Nottingham took judicial notice of his own experience when introducing a Bill in the House of Lords. . .
CitedAssam Railways and Trading Co Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 1935
Parties questioned the admissibility before the House of recommendations of a Royal Commission on Income Tax which had preceded an Act and which counsel for the appellants sought to cite as part of the context of intention of Parliament in relation . .
CitedBeswick v Beswick HL 29-Jun-1967
The deceased had assigned his coal merchant business to the respondent against a promise to pay andpound;5.00 a week to his widow whilst she lived. The respondent appealed an order requiring him to make the payments, saying that as a consolidating . .
ApprovedChurch of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith QBD 1971
The plaintiff church sued the defendant, a Member of Parliament, for remarks made by the defendant in a television programme. He pleaded fair comment and the plaintiff replied with a plea of malice, relying on statements made in Parliament. The . .
Appeal fromPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart CA 1991
. .

Cited by:

ConstrainedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited HL 7-Dec-2000
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit . .
CitedAHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
CitedRegina v Warwickshire County Council, ex parte Johnson HL 10-Feb-1993
The manager of a shop was not necessarily liable for a misleading price indication in the shop. There had been a national price reduction advertisement. A customer came into the shop to try to buy a television under the scheme. The store manager . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
CitedRegina on the Application of G v Westminster City Council QBD 30-Jan-2004
The child sought review of the respondent’s decision not to provide education other than at one school. He had been suspended, but his father refused to allow him to return complaining of the effects of bullying.
Held: The condition of being . .
CitedRegina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedRegina on the Application of Jackson and others v HM Attorney General CA 16-Feb-2005
The applicant asserted that the 2004 Act was invalid having been passed under the procedure in the 1949 Act, reducing the period by which the House of Lords could delay legislation; the 1949 Act was invalid, being delegated legislation, had used the . .
UnwiseRobinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Others HL 25-Jul-2002
The Northern Ireland Parliament had elected its first minister and deputy more than six weeks after the election, but the Act required the election to be within that time. It was argued that as a creature of statute, the Parliament could not act . .
CitedJackson and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General Admn 28-Jan-2005
The 2004 Act had been passed without the approval of the House of Lords and under the provisions of the 1911 Act as amended by the 1949 Act. The 1949 Act had used the provisions of the 1911 Act to amend the 1911 Act. The claimant said this meant . .
CitedIn re P (a minor by his mother and litigation friend); P v National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers HL 27-Feb-2003
The pupil had been excluded from school but then ordered to be re-instated. The teachers, through their union, refused to teach him claiming that he was disruptive. The claimant appealed a refusal of an injunction. The injunction had been refused on . .
CitedCountryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
CitedRopaigealach v Barclays Bank plc CA 6-Jan-1999
The applicant’s property was charged to the defendant. At the time it was not occupied. The mortgage fell into arrears, and after serving notice at the property, the bank took posssession and sold the property at auction. The claimants said the bank . .
CitedThe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Jonkler and Another ChD 10-Feb-2006
The applicant had given an undertaking to the court to secure discontinuance of company director disqualification procedings. He now sought a variation of the undertaking.
Held: The claimant had given an undertaking, but in the light of new . .
AppliedHarding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
CitedWright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Secretary of State for Education and Skills Admn 16-Nov-2006
The various applicants sought judicial review of the operation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List insofar as they had been placed provisionally on the list, preventing them from finding work. One complaint was that the list had operated . .
CitedBradley and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 21-Feb-2007
The claimant had lost his company pension and complained that the respondent had refused to follow the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that compensation should be paid.
Held: The court should not rely on . .
CitedL, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 1-Mar-2007
The court considered the proper content of an enhanced criminal record certificate. The claimant said that it should contain only matter relating to actual or potential criminal activity.
Held: As to the meaning of section 115: ‘if Parliament . .
AppliedNational Grid Gas Plc, Regina (on the Application of) v The Environment Agency HL 27-Jun-2007
The Agency sought to impose liability on the appellant to remediate land which had been polluted by the appellant’s predecessor, the East Midlands Gas Board, claiming it to be a responsible as successor.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the . .
CitedHaw and Another v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Dec-2007
The defendants appealed convictions for contempt of court, on the basis of having wilfully interrupted the court. The respondent said that no appeal lay.
Held: The statute was ambiguous, and ‘there can be no good reason why a person convicted . .
MentionedOffice of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
CitedKing v The Serious Fraud Office CACD 18-Mar-2008
Restraint and Disclosure orders had been made on without notice applications at the request of South Africa. The applicant appealed a refusal of their discharge.
Held: Such orders did not apply to the applicant’s assets in Scotland. The orders . .
CitedG, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Admn 20-May-2008
The applicants were detained at Rampton. The form of detention denied the access to space in which they would be able to smoke cigarettes to comply with the law.
Held: The claim failed. The legislative objectives were sufficiently serious to . .
CitedAdorian v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 23-Jan-2009
The claimant received injuries when arrested. He was later convicted of resisting arrest. The defendant relied on section 329 of the 2003 Act. The claimant said that the force used against him was grossly disproportionate. The commissioner appealed . .
CitedBUPA Care Homes v Cann; Spillett v Tesco Stores EAT 31-Jan-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and Pre-Action Requirements; and Amendment
Whether section 32(4) EA 2002 – original time limit – restricts time for bringing a DDA claim to the primary 3 months period, . .
CitedJTB, Regina v HL 29-Apr-2009
The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual assaults. He was aged twelve at the time of the offences, but had been prevented from arguing that he had not known that what he was doing was wrong. The House was asked whether the effect of . .
CitedRegina v Deegan CACD 4-Feb-1998
The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a bladed article in a public place. It was a pocket knife which locked open, but its blade could be retracted on using the mechanism, and did not exceed three inches.
Held: The Court . .
CitedClark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
CitedChartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
CitedCatholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another ChD 17-Mar-2010
The charity appealed against refusal of permission to amend its charitable objects as set out in the memorandum of association. The charity was successful as an adoption agency particularly in placing children who would otherwise have had difficulty . .
CitedPrebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
CitedRegina v Morley; Regina v Chaytor; Regina v Devine; Regina v Lord Hanningfield CC 11-Jun-2010
(Southwark Crown Court) The defendants faced charges of false accounting in connection with expense claims as members of parliament, three of the House of Commons and one of the Lords. Each claimed that the matter was covered by Parliamentary . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .
CitedFarstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd SC 6-Apr-2011
The court was asked by the parties to a charterparty whether one of them is an ‘Affiliate’ of the charterer for the purposes of provisions in a charterparty by which both the owner and the charterer agreed to indemnify and hold each other harmless . .
CitedBloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
CitedScottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Jul-2011
The taxpayer insurance company had transferred sums from accounts designated as Capital Reserves. The Revenue said that these were properly part of the profit and loss accounts for the respective tax years, and chargeable receipts.
Held: The . .
CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
CitedAssange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
CitedGow v Grant SC 24-May-2012
The parties had lived together as an unmarried couple, but separated. Mrs Gow applied under the 2006 Act for provision. Mr Grant’s appeal succeeded at the Inner House, and Mrs Gow now herself appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Act did . .
CitedCusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .
ConsideredThet v Director of Public Prosecutionsz Admn 19-Oct-2006
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction by the magistrates for entering the UK without a passport. He had relied on a false passport povided to him by an agent, and had returned it to the facilitator. He was therefore unable to . .
ConsideredTabnak, Regina v CACD 19-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction under section 35 of the 2004 Act, having pleaded guilty after an adverse ruling as to the law. After being refused asylum and several failed appeals he had refused to give assistance in providing the . .
CitedBogdanic v The Secretary of State for The Home Department QBD 29-Aug-2014
The claimant challenged fines imposed on him after three illegal immigrants were found to have hidden in his lorry in the immigration control zone at Dunkirk. The 1999 At was to have been amended by the 2002 Act, and the implementation was by the . .
CitedWhitston (Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 2-Oct-2014
The claimants challenged the selection by the defendant of victims of meselothemia as a group were excluded from entitlement to the recovery of success fees and insurance premiums paid by successful claimants from unsuccessful defendants.
CitedBucnys v Ministry of Justice SC 20-Nov-2013
The Court considered requests made by European Arrest Warrants for the surrender under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 of three persons wanted to serve sentences imposed upon their conviction in other member states of the European Union. The . .
CitedChesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and Another v Nurmohamed (Victimisation Discrimination: Whistleblowing) EAT 8-Apr-2015
chesteron_nurmohamedEAT201504
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
Whistleblowing
Protected disclosure
This appeal concerns the meaning of the words ‘in the public interest’ inserted into section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights . .
CitedMakudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s . .
CitedKimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .
CitedIceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
CitedAl-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
(Grand Chamber) The exercise of jurisdiction, which is a threshold condition, is a necessary condition for a contracting state to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the . .
CitedCherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .
CitedForge Care Homes Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and Others SC 2-Aug-2017
The court was asked who is legally responsible for paying for the work done by registered nurses in social rather than health care settings. Is the National Health Service responsible for all the work they do or are the social care funders . .
CitedHutchings, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 6-Jun-2019
The appellant, a former army officer challenged proceedings against him as to the death of a civilian shot in Northern Ireland in 1974. His trial had been certified for trial by judge alone, and without a jury under section 1 of the 2007 Act.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.175101

Sutherland and Others v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 17 May 1993

One partner may not appeal against an assessment to tax against the wishes of his or her partners.

Citations:

Ind Summary 31-May-1993, Times 17-May-1993

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 56

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromSutherland and Others v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes) CA 28-Feb-1994
One of several partners may appeal against the firm’s tax assessment without his partners’ approval. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.89626

Inland Revenue v Luke: HL 15 Jan 1963

Income Tax, Schedule E-Benefit in kind-Director in occupation of company’s house-Expenditure by company on repairs and upkeep in excess of rent- Income Tax Act, 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. VI and 1 Eliz. II, c. 10), Sections 161 and 162.

Citations:

[1963] UKHL TC – 40 – 630, [1963] AC 557, 40 TC 630

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHancock and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 22-May-2019
The taxpayers sold their shares in return for loan notes in the form of mixed qualifying (QCB) and non qualifying corporate bonds (Non-QCB) within section 115 of the 1992 Act. Gains on the disposal of QCB would be exempt from CGT. These were then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.559255

Cubberley v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Apr 2011

Self-assessment – penalty – interest – surcharge for late payment of tax – whether insufficiency of funds a reasonable excuse – no – request for Time to Pay – whether HMRC’s failure to return call a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 239 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.442970

Winsor (T/A Winsor Electrical) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 Oct 2012

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – amount of determination under regulation 13 of the Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 – whether correct – taxpayer alleging that the amount was based on incorrect information supplied by third parties to HMRC – lack of evidence – determination reduced to an amount accepted by the appellant to be due in the exercise by the Tribunal of the overriding objective as provided by rule 2 of the Tribunal procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 668 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.466243

Chowdhury v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Oct 2012

INCOME TAX – self assessment – enquiry into letting income and business profits – whether profits understated – unidentified deposits in private bank account – investment in properties – whether partly funded by family members – held, on facts, no – closure notice confirmed subject to minor amendments as made on review – discovery assessments for previous two years confirmed – penalties under s 95 TMA 1970 confirmed but in reduced amounts – penalty under Sch 36 FA 2008 confirmed – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 630 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.466196

Pooley and Another v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 8 Mar 2006

SCIT Income tax – assessment – whether HMRC had power to raise assessments despite responses by taxpayers in negotiations – whether failure by taxpayers to provide proper stock valuations called accounts into question – basis of determining taxable profits in absence of reliable books and records

Citations:

[2006] UKSPC SPC00525

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.240294

The National and Provincial Building Society, The Leeds Permanent Building Society And The Yorkshire Building Society v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Oct 1997

ECHR United Kingdom – applicants’ legal claims to restitution of monies paid under invalidated tax provisions extinguished under the effects of retrospective legislation (section 53 of Finance Act 1991 and section 64 of Finance (No. 2) Act 1992)

Citations:

21449/93, 21319/93, [1997] ECHR 87, 21675/93, [1997] STC 1466, 69 TC 540, [1997] BTC 624, (1998) 25 EHRR 127, [1998] HRCD 34

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1991 53, Finance (No 2) Act 1992 64

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedJP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Taxes Management

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.227257

NKM v Hungary: ECHR 14 May 2013

ECHR Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Disproportionately high taxation of applicant’s severance pay:
violation
Facts – The applicant, who had been a civil servant for thirty years, was dismissed on 27 May 2011 with effect from 28 July 2011. On dismissal, she was statutorily entitled to her salary for June and July 2011, a sum corresponding to unused leave of absence, and eight months’ severance pay. These sums were subsequently taxed pursuant to a law that had entered into force on 14 May 2011 raising tax levels on severance pay in the public sector. As a result, the applicant had an overall tax burden of approximately 52% on her severance pay, compared to the general personal income-tax rate of 16% at the relevant time.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The severance pay constituted a substantive interest which ‘had already been earned or was definitely payable’ and so was to be regarded as a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The fact that tax was imposed on this income demonstrated that it was regarded as existing revenue by the State, since imposing tax on a non-acquired property or revenue would be inconceivable. The impugned taxation represented an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. The applicant had been notified of her dismissal approximately ten weeks after the entry into force of the amended legislation in May 2011; accordingly, the taxation complained of was not retroactive. Although certain issues as to the constitutionality of the legislation had been raised, it could nevertheless be accepted as providing a proper legal basis for the measure in question. The Court accepted that the impugned measure was intended to protect the public purse against excessive expenditure.
As to the question of proportionality, the States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in the area of taxation, which in the interests of social justice and economic well-being might legitimately lead them to adjust, cap or even reduce the amount of severance pay normally due. At 52%, the overall tax rate applied in the applicant’s case considerably exceeded the rate applied to all other revenues, including severance pay in the private sector. The personal situation of the applicant, who had suffered a substantial deprivation of income as a result of her unemployment, was also relevant. In the Court’s view, she and a group of other dismissed civil servants had been made to bear an excessive and disproportionate burden without the legislature having afforded her a transitional period of adjustment to the new scheme. Moreover, the tax had been directly deducted by the employer from the severance pay without any individualised assessment of her situation and was imposed on income related to activities prior to the material tax year. Taxation at a considerably higher rate than that in force when the revenue was generated could be regarded as an unreasonable interference with the right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In conclusion, the measure applied in the applicant’s case was not reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 11,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

Citations:

66529/11 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 546

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Legal SummaryNKM v Hungary ECHR 14-May-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.510994

Johnson v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Apr 2013

FTTTX INCOME TAX – whether ‘termination payment’ included repayment of purchase of an option in company EMI scheme – yes – Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society considered – whether the payment included sum referable to employee’s employment contract – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 242 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.491862

Shiner and Another v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Deductibility of Interest): FTTTx 17 Jul 2020

INCOME TAX – deductibility of interest incurred on loans made to two interest in possession settlements in the Isle of Man in circumstances where the proceeds of the loans were ultimately used in the course of a trade carried on by a partnership between the two settlements – consideration of the facts involved in the transaction and whether or not, in the light of those facts, the interest was deductible in computing the quantum of the trading profits of the partnership which were subject to income tax in the hands of the settlors of the settlements – conclusion that the interest was not so deductible – however, as agreed between the parties, an adjustment to the quantum of the trading profits of the partnership for work in progress would be allowed – subject to that adjustment, appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 295 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.653147

Schotten and Hansen (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Feb 2017

FTTTx (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry) ONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – penalties – late filing of returns – one foreign sub-contractor – whether reasonable excuse – reliance on accountant – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 191 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578541

Schechter v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Mar 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Losses) INCOME TAX – offset of trading losses against income – whether land was held as trading stock – whether declaration of trust was effective to transfer beneficial ownership of land to appellants – effect of s14 Stamp Act 1891 on admissibility of trust declarations – application of foreign laws – Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 – illegal return of capital – sham – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 189 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578550

Singh v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Feb 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Appeal) Income tax – undeclared income – whether notification prior to assessment is a valid notice of appeal – no – application for permission to appeal out of time – section 49 taxes management act 1970 – application refused

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 154 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578543

Steiner v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Feb 2017

FTTTx (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty) INCOME TAX – late payment penalties – tax return by former accountants amended on advice of new accountants after the deadline for payment and after the trigger dates for penalties – liability to penalties – reasonable excuse – special circumstances

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 157 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578545

Fallon v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Apr 2011

Income Tax – surcharge – whether reasonable excuse – whether surcharge a breach of Appellant’s Human Rights under Articles 1 and 14 European Convention on Human Rights – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 262 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.442980

Good v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 18 Nov 2021

INCOME TAX – tax scheme relating to film distribution rights – whether non-trade business of exploiting films – taxation of Minimum Annual Payments under scheme and whether taxpayer entitled to such payments – whether loan interest payments deductible – whether statutory conditions for discovery assessments satisfied – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 281 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.671219

Stanley v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Mar 2011

Income tax – discovery assessments – no notification of chargeability – which test of conduct applicable and which version of s 36 TMA 1970 – effect of transitional provisions on test and on time limit – finding of negligent conduct – assessments confirmed and appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 169 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.442950

Birkett (T/A The Orchards Residential Home and similar) v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 2 Mar 2017

UTTC INCOME TAX – Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 – whether daily penalties payable – jurisdiction of First-tier Tribunal to consider taxpayer’s legitimate expectation – compliance with Human Rights Act

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 89 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2008 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Human Rights

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577822

Revenue and Customs v Sippchoice Ltd: UTTC 1 Mar 2017

Income : Scheme Sanction Charges – FA 2009 s 269 – whether scheme administrator reasonably believed that no unauthorised payment was being made – s 268(7)(a) – whether FTT erred in its interpretation and application of the test of reasonableness – Mobilx considered – whether FTT made an error of law in its findings of fact – Edwards v Bairstow

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 87 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577821

Revenue and Customs v Walker: UTTC 1 Feb 2017

INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – payment by HMRC of amount shown as repayable in self-assessment return – amendment to return by HMRC following closure notice – appeal by taxpayer to FTT establishing that amount shown as repayable in amended return too small but amount claimed in original return too high – whether FTT correct to conclude no jurisdiction to further amend return to reflect amount found by it to be repayable – No – appeal determined accordingly.

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 32 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes – Other

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577817

Samarkand Film Partnership No 3 and Others v Revenue and Customs: CA 24 Feb 2017

The Court was asked whether two ‘film scheme’ partnerships, which were marketed to wealthy individuals resident but not domiciled in the United Kingdom who wished to generate substantial first year losses to set against their taxable income, were carrying on a trade. If the partnerships were not trading, the schemes failed to achieve their fiscal objective in accordance with the relevant legislation governing the grant of tax relief for the financing of films.

Judges:

Arden, David Richards, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 77

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.577499

Derry, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 10 Apr 2019

D bought 500,000 shares in TY 2009/10 for pounds 500,000 in Media Pro Four Ltd. In tax year 2010/11 he sold them to ‘Island House Private Charitable Trust’ for pounds 85,500, realising a loss of pounds 414,500. His 2009/10 tax return claimed share loss relief for that amount against income for that year under section 132 of the 2007 Act. HMRC identified the claim as possible tax avoidance.
In December 2011, his tax return for 2010/11, said that the relief for the loss of pounds 414,500 had already been claimed and relief obtained in 2009/10. In response, HMRC opened an enquiry into the claim for share loss relief. This was made under schedule
1A of the 1970 Act saying was a claim made ‘outside of a return’ and opened an enquiry into 2010/11 under section 9A of the 1970 Act. HMRC then demanded pounds 95,546.36 with interest. D sought judicial review of the demand. The two issues were:
(1) Whether, having exercised his right to claim the relevant loss relief in the previous year (2009/10), D was correct to deduct that loss in calculating his net income for that year; or whether, as HMRC contend, that right was overridden by schedule 1B of the 1970 Act, such that the loss, although claimed in year 2009/10, was to be treated as ‘relating to’ the following year.
(2) Whether, if it was an error for Mr Derry to make a claim for relief in the tax return for 2009/10, that claim is nonetheless part of the tax return for that year.
D failed on both issues in the UT. On the first issue, the CA found for HMRC. On the second issue, it found for D that the claim for relief was part of the 2009/10 return. As HMRC did not open an enquiry into the 2009/10 return in time, it granted judicial review. HMRC appealed on the second issue. D resists on that issue but sought to uphold the decision in any event on the first.

Judges:

Lord Reed DPSC, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin JJSC

Citations:

[2019] WLR(D) 243, [2019] 1 WLR 2754, [2019] UKSC 19, [2019] STC 926, [2019] 4 All ER 127, [2019] BTC 11

Links:

WLRD, Bailii Summary, Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 2007 132

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At UTTCDerry, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs UTTC 28-Jul-2015
UTTC Application for judicial review – self-assessment in annual return – claim to relief under Chapter 6 of Part 4 of Income Tax Act 2007 (dealing with share loss relief) – whether such a claim governed by . .
Appeal from (CA)Derry, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jun-2017
‘The structure of Schedule 1B is that it applies to certain specified claims for relief involving two or more years. The provisions relating to loss relief are contained in paragraph 2. The remaining paragraphs deal with entirely separate claims, . .
CitedWhitney v Inland Revenue HL 6-Nov-1925
Super-tax – Liability of non-resident alien in receipt of income from the United Kingdom – Service abroad of notice to make return of income – Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. VII, c. 8), Sections 66 and 72-Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, . .
CitedRouse, Regina (on The Application of) v HMRC UTTC 4-Dec-2013
UTTC PROCEDURE – review of decision – whether conclusions should be changed following later Supreme Court judgment – yes – review undertaken and decision altered . .
CitedCotter v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Nov-2013
This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a . .
CitedBlackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling CA 21-Aug-2003
The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.636996

Whitney v Inland Revenue: HL 6 Nov 1925

Super-tax – Liability of non-resident alien in receipt of income from the United Kingdom – Service abroad of notice to make return of income – Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. VII, c. 8), Sections 66 and 72-Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Sections 5 and 7
Lord Dunedin enumerated of the ‘three stages in the imposition of a tax’ – that is, declaration of liability, assessment, and methods of recovery. As to the first: ‘ . . the part of the statute which determines what persons in respect of what property are liable. . . Liability does not depend on assessment. That, ex hypothesi, has already been fixed.’

Citations:

[1925] UKHL TC – 10 – 88, [1924] 2 KB 602, [1926] AC 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDerry, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 10-Apr-2019
D bought 500,000 shares in TY 2009/10 for pounds 500,000 in Media Pro Four Ltd. In tax year 2010/11 he sold them to ‘Island House Private Charitable Trust’ for pounds 85,500, realising a loss of pounds 414,500. His 2009/10 tax return claimed share . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.633848

Blackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling: CA 21 Aug 2003

The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and therefore ‘corresponds’ to that year of assessment. Accordingly, losses declared in May 2003, and other losses derived from payments made up to the end of the underwriting year 2003, regardless of their derivation, are ‘taken to be’ losses ‘in’ the year of assessment 2003/4. However the regulations restricted the making of claims to those which had been established at the time the claim for relief was made. That did not apply here, and the appeal by the Revenue succeeded.
Carnwarth LJ said: ‘This elaborate deeming provision has the effect (so far as it applies) that, where under section 380(1)(b) loss relief is claimed on income in the preceding year, the claim nonetheless ‘relates’ to the later year (para 2(3)). The amount of the claim is computed using the formula in paragraph 2(4), based on the income in the previous year; but it does not affect the tax position in the earlier year (para 2(3)). It gives rise to a ‘free-standing credit’ (in the Revenue’s language) which can be used in any of the ways set out in paragraph 2(6).’

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Carnwath, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Mr

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1221, Times 22-Sep-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1993 Part II Chapter III, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, Income Tax (Employment) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/744) 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJones (HM Inspector of Taxes) v O’Brien 1988
. .
Appeal fromBlackburn (H M Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling ChD 9-Apr-2003
The taxpayer was a name at Lloyds. The inspector appealed a finding that the taxpayer’s trading losses could be attributed to one particular year, and set off through his PAYE coding. The difference would be that according to the inspector’s . .

Cited by:

CitedCotter v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Nov-2013
This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Cotter CA 8-Feb-2012
Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v Cotter ChD 14-Apr-2011
The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due . .
CitedDerry, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 10-Apr-2019
D bought 500,000 shares in TY 2009/10 for pounds 500,000 in Media Pro Four Ltd. In tax year 2010/11 he sold them to ‘Island House Private Charitable Trust’ for pounds 85,500, realising a loss of pounds 414,500. His 2009/10 tax return claimed share . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.185675

Cotter v Revenue and Customs: SC 6 Nov 2013

This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a tax return. He had submitted a tax return but then submitted amendments claiming for losses in the following year. The Revenue sought payment of the tax due under the unamended return by proceedings in the County Court. The taxpayer said that any such proceedings had to be in the First Tier Tribunal, because that Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to decide at what stage losses were to be allowed for in the amended return. The erevenue appealed aginst the decision that it must claim in the First Tier Tribunal.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The term ‘return’ refersdto the information in the tax return form which is submitted for ‘for the purpose of establishing the amounts in which a person is chargeable to income tax and capital gains tax’ for the relevant year of assessment and ‘the amount payable by him by way of income tax for that year’. Not everything put in the Tax return by the taxpayer need be in law part of the return. The actual question was whether the claim for losses entered into the return amounted to a defence to the Revenue’s claim for tax. As such that question could be answered in the County and High Courts. It was not an appeal against an assessment to tax for a particular year, which would have to go to the Tribunal.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2013] UKSC 69, [2013] BTC 837, [2013] 1 WLR 3514, [2013] STC 2480, [2013] STI 3450, [2014] 1 All ER 1, UKSC 2012/0062, [2014] 1 All ER 1

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 2007 128

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAutologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
CitedBlackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling CA 21-Aug-2003
The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and . .
At ChDRevenue and Customs v Cotter ChD 14-Apr-2011
The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Cotter CA 8-Feb-2012
Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue . .

Cited by:

CitedDe Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 15-Nov-2017
The appellants had entered into certain partnerships designed to mitigate liability too income tax by creating trading losses through investments in films. HMRC rejected the claims. HMRC then sought to backdate adjustments to the carry-back claims . .
CitedDerry, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 10-Apr-2019
D bought 500,000 shares in TY 2009/10 for pounds 500,000 in Media Pro Four Ltd. In tax year 2010/11 he sold them to ‘Island House Private Charitable Trust’ for pounds 85,500, realising a loss of pounds 414,500. His 2009/10 tax return claimed share . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.517445

Lancashire and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Oct 2020

INCOME TAX – whether the appellants are taxable on sums received under offshore partnership and trust arrangements as earnings under ITEPA – if so, whether the appellants are entitled to ‘credit’ for the resulting income tax which third parties were liable to deduct or account for under the Pay As You Earn System and are overcharged to tax – whether the tribunal can consider the appellants’ grounds of appeal relating to the ‘credit’ issue – whether the tribunal can consider the effect of decisions issued by HMRC under s 684(7A) ITEPA which HMRC argue prevent any ‘credit ‘arising – whether, in any event, the appellants are taxable on the sums under the provisions relating to the transfer of assets abroad – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 407 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.655336