Mohamed v Revenue and Customs (Fixed and Daily Penalties for Late Filing): FTTTx 4 Dec 2020

Income tax – fixed and daily penalties for late filing of Individual SA return – significant delay before submitting return – appellant asserts that she had been ill and also confused her tax credit annual renewal with her tax return – whether reasonable excuse for delay – no – appeal refused

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 492 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.661814

Omolade v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Whether Deposits and Transfers Into Appellants Bank Accounts Were Income): FTTTx 10 Feb 2021

INCOME TAX – whether deposits and transfers into Appellant’s bank accounts were income – penalties imposed on basis that behaviour was deliberate – appeal allowed in part – assessments to be reduced – penalties correctly imposed on basis of deliberate behaviour

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 41 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.661769

Sternlicht and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Application By HMRC To Strike Out Appeal On Basis That It Has No Reasonable Prospect of Success): FTTTx 24 Feb 2021

INCOME TAX – application by HMRC to strike out appeal on basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success – sole ground of appeal that notices to file assumed received by Appellants were not valid – application allowed and appeal struck-out

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 59 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.661778

Attorney General v Hancock: 1940

The Crown could enforce a debt for unpaid income tax without the leave of the court, not being bound by the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act 1939, which prohibited enforcement without leave.

Citations:

[1940] 1 KB 427

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Constitutional

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651108

Madras Electric Supply Corp Ltd v Boarland House of Lords: HL 11 Mar 1955

Income Tax, Schedule D – Balancing charge – Succession by Crown – Whether cessation provisions apply – Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Schedule D, Cases I and II, Rule 11 ; Finance Act, 1926 (16 and 17 Geo. V, c. 22), Section 32.
The Respondent Company carried on an electricity undertaking in Madras under several licences which all provided that on 29th August, 1947, the local authority or local government should have the option to purchase the undertaking. This option was exercised by the Madras Government who took possession of the undertaking on that date and thereafter carried it on.
A balancing charge was made on the Company for the year 1947-48 on the footing that on 29th August, 1947, the Madras Government succeeded to the trade within the meaning of Rule 11 (2) of Cases I and II of Schedule D; that accordingly the basis period for the assessment on the Company for that year was the period beginning 5th April, 1947, and ending 29th August, 1947; and that the sale of the Company’s undertaking occurred in that basis period. On appeal to the Special Commissioners, the Company contended that the person succeeding to its trade was the Crown; that Rule 11 (2) of Cases I and II of Schedule D had no application where the successor to the trade was the Crown or was not chargeable to Income Tax; and that the Company’s basis period for the year of assessment 1947-48 was therefore the preceding year, the year to 3Is/ December, 1946, and not the period in which the sale occurred. The Commissioners allowed the appeal, holding that the trade was carried on after 29th August, 1947, by the Crown and that the Crown was not a ‘person ‘for the purposes of Rule 11 (2).
Held, that ‘person ‘in Rule 11 (2) includes the Crown.
The House was asked whether the Crown was a ‘person’ for a particular purpose. While holding that the Crown was such a person, their Lordships reiterated the classic doctrine, Lord MacDermott and Lord Reid locating this as a rule of statutory construction rather than an aspect of the royal prerogative.

Judges:

Lord MacDermott and Lord Reid

Citations:

[1955] UKHL TC – 35 – 612, (1955) 34 ATC 53, [1955] 2 WLR 632, [1955] 1 All ER 753, 8 R and IT 189, 35 TC 612, [1955] TR 57, [1955] AC 667

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1918

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Constitutional

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.601882

Taylor v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Mar 2011

Appeal against amendment made to tax return in relation to lump sum payment made in respect of missing pension contributions by the employer company -whether it fell to be exempted from tax- appeal dismissed- appeal against consequent penalty allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 209 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.442951

Crossland v Hawkins: CA 1961

The taxpayer, a well known film actor, agreed to work through a company for three years being paid andpound;50 per week. The shares were transferred to his wife and accountant. His father in law set up a andpound;100 settlement for the benefit of his children of which his wife and accountant were the trustees. The fund was used to subscribe for the remaining 98 shares. He appeared in a film for which the company was paid andpound;25,000. The company paid a dividend which was applied by the trustees for the benefit of the children. Jack Hawkins then applied on behalf of his children for a repayment of tax to give effect to their personal allowances. The repayment claim was rejected on the grounds that the whole arrangement was a settlement of which Jack Hawkins was a settlor because he had provided the funds for it.
Held: Jack Hawkins’ appeal was dismissed. It was argued the settlement executed by the father in law had not been contemplated at the outset and could not be included in any arrangement. Donovan LJ: ‘I will accept for the moment the proposition that the family settlement which followed was not decided upon at the outset; but what is important, I think, is that the eventual enjoyment by some individual or individuals of the money which had escaped surtax must have been in contemplation at the outset. Otherwise, as I say, the scheme had no rational purpose.’ and ‘But, even were it otherwise, I think that there is sufficient unity about the whole matter to justify it being called an ‘arrangement’ for this purpose, because, as I have said, the ultimate object is to secure for somebody money free from what would otherwise be the burden, or the full burden of surtax. Merely because the final step to secure this objective is left unresolved at the outset and decided upon later does not seem to me to rob the scheme of the necessary unity to justify it being called an ‘arrangement’.’
Pearce LJ, agreeing said: ‘The mere fact that he [Jack Hawkins] did not concern himself with some of the steps in the legal machinery involved does not make it any the less his arrangement within the [section]. A man does not avoid the incidence of [the section] by merely being absent from, and leaving to his solicitors and accountants, certain parts of the legal machinery, if he is aware of the proposals for an ‘arrangement’ or a settlement and actively forwards them by personally carrying out and assisting in the vital parts in which his performance and co-operation are necessary.’

Judges:

Donovan LJ, Holroyd Pearce LJ, Upjohn LJ

Citations:

[1961] Ch 537

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1952 397

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJones v Garnett (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-Apr-2005
The taxpayer worked as an information technology specialist. His earnings were channelled through a limited company. The company paid on part of its income to his wife, with the result that the total tax paid was reduced. The inspector sought to tax . .
CitedMills (Hayley) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 12-Feb-1974
Surtax – Settlement – Arrangement – Settlor – Fees for actress’s services paid to company but enuring for her benefit – Actress aged 14 when arrangements made – Settlement with more than one settlor – From whom income originates – Income Tax Act . .
CitedJones v Michael Vincent Garnett (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 15-Dec-2005
Husband and wife had been shareholders in a company, the wife being recorded as company secretary. The company paid dividenceds to both. The husband appealed a decision that the payment to his wife was by way of a settlement and was taxable in his . .
CitedJones v Garnett (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Jul-2007
The husband and wife had each owned a share in a company which sold the services of the husband. The Revenue claimed that the payment of dividends to the wife was a settlement.
Held: The Revenue failed. The share had been transferred to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.224942

Jenkinson (Inspector of Taxes) v Freedland: 1961

The court considered whether the purchase and sale of an item making a profit must count as acting in the course of trade so as to cause liability to income tax. Donovan LJ: ‘It cannot be right, therefore, to assert, as the Crown did before us, that whenever something is bought to re-sell at a profit an adventure or concern in the nature of trade necessarily results, and any finding of Commissioners to the contrary must be perverse. Otherwise there would hardly be any need to introduce a capital gains tax. It would virtually be here already. The true position, in my opinion, is that all the facts in each case must be considered, not merely the motive of acquisition, and a conclusion arrived at from such a comprehensive review.’

Judges:

Donovan LJ

Citations:

(1961) 39 Tax Cas 636

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWisdom v Chamberlain (Inspector of Taxes) CA 8-Nov-1968
The taxpayer, a comic actor, bought silver bullion hoping it would act as a hedge against a possible deflation of the pound. The revenue sought to tax his profits on sale under Schedule D. He argued that the money, being from one transaction, did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.235907

Burford v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Whether A Notice To File Pursuant): FTTTx 17 Feb 2021

INCOME TAX – Whether a notice to file pursuant to s 8 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 requiring taxpayer to file a return was validly issued – yes – Rogers and Shaw considered and applied – Whether late payment penalty correctly assessed and applied – yes – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 47 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.661753

Smith v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – High Income Child Benefit Charge): FTTTx 17 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX – High Income Child Benefit Charge (‘HICBC’) – penalty for failure to notify liability – Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008 – whether HMRC have the duty to notify the ‘debt’ at the time – whether being completely unaware of HICBC a reasonable excuse – whether HICBC ‘penalty refund’ as indicated on HMRC’s leaflet applies in the instant case – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction over the penalty refund matter – appeal dismissed’

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 147 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650696

Hindmarsh v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry): FTTTx 12 Mar 2020

Procedure – application to admit late appeal – CIS – determinations and penalties – delay of 28 months – Denton and Martland considered – Application refused

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 141 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650686

Kaur v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax – Discovery Assessments and Penalties : Appeal): FTTTx 15 Nov 2019

INCOME TAX – discovery assessments and penalties – appeal to HMRC made 20 months after assessments issued – HMRC refused to admit late appeal – Section 49(2) Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether Tribunal should grant permission for the appeal to HMRC to be admitted out of time – Martland applied – Katib considered – application refused

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 698 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.646894

Root 2 Tax Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax : ‘Spread Betting’ Contracts): FTTTx 10 Dec 2019

INCOME TAX – whether under the Income Tax (Pensions and Earnings) Act 2003 amounts paid under ‘spread betting’ contracts were taxable as earnings from employment – or as employment related benefits – or under Part 7 A of that Act

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 744 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.646940

Hooton (T/A Kds Refrigeration Ltd) v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 8 Nov 2019

Income tax – penalties for late payment of PAYE and NIC due under Accelerated Payment Notices (APN’s) – appellant maintained that the Company had not received the Notices – previous APN’s had been received and actioned – postal address to which Notices sent was partly incorrect – whether notices had been received – no – reasonable excuse – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 685 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.646888

Danaj v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Individual Tax Return – Failure To File Income Tax Return By Due Date): FTTTx 25 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX – individual tax return – failure to file income tax return by due date – penalty under paragraph 3 Schedule 55 FA 2009 – Whether reasonable excuse established – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 165 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650681

Brown v Bullock (Inspector of Taxes): CA 26 Jun 1961

Whether a bank manager could set off against his tax, the costs of memberships of local clubs and organisation which he was expected to join as a condition of his emplyment.

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR, Harman KJ

Citations:

[1961] EWCA Civ 5, [1961] 3 All ER 129, [1961] 1 WLR 1095

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1952 (th Sch p7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.262812

Sternlicht and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Application By HMRC To Strike Out Appeal On Basis That It Has No Reasonable Prospect of Success): FTTTx 14 Dec 2020

INCOME TAX – application by HMRC to strike out appeal on basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success – sole ground of appeal that notices to file assumed received by Appellants were not valid – application allowed and appeal struck-out

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 502 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.661819

Szymusik v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income): FTTTx 30 Mar 2020

Income Tax -appeal against closure notices and s 29 TMA assessments:
(1) s 15 ITTOIA duties of employment as a diver in UK waters treated as a trade – did s15 take priority over the seafarer’s earnings deduction in section 378 ITEPA ;
(2) meaning of ‘seafarer’ in s 378 – did a diver work ‘on’ a ship – was the vessel a ship or an offshore installation within s 1001 ITA ; and
(3) Did Regulation 185 PAYE Regs apply to the self assessment calculation under s 9(1)(b) TMA as it applied to the determination of tax payable under s 59B TMA

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 154 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650697

McNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd: CA 26 Oct 1998

Cross loans were made between an investment company and pension schemes. The overall effect was to create payments which could be set off against Corporation Tax. They were not a pre-ordained series of transactions where the underlying loans were genuine, and the payments were made in respect of a genuine accrual of interest.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1998, Gazette 18-Nov-1998, [2001] 2 WLR 377, [1998] EWCA Civ 1608

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 338

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
At ChDMcNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd ChD 19-Aug-1997
Loans made between associated companies for the sole purpose of creating a charge to tax were ineffective as avoidance scheme. . .

Cited by:

CitedBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 22-Jul-2002
The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax . .
At CAMacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.83580

Clarke v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 13 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX – High income child benefit charge (‘HICBC’) – discovery assessment under s 29 of TMA – penalty for failure to notify liability – Schedule 41 to Finance Act 2008 – appellant unaware of the obligation to notify – HMRC’s policy relating to penalty refunds considered – whether reasonable excuse for failure to notify – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 144 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650679

Rafiq v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Individual Tax Return – Penalties for Late Filing): FTTTx 27 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX – individual tax return – penalties for late filing – whether properly imposed – yes – late appeal against late filing penalty – permission to appeal late denied – appeal against daily and 6 month penalties – whether reasonable excuse – no – whether special circumstances – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 153 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650692

Akhtar v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Mobile Care Worker – Mileage Allowance Relief): FTTTx 23 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX – mobile care worker – mileage allowance relief – amount of tax deducted under PAYE – whether errors in tax returns deliberate or careless – whether decision not to suspend penalties flawed – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 160 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650673

Smith v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Penalties): FTTTx 3 Jan 2020

INCOME TAX – penalties – appellant opting for ‘paperless’ contact – HMRC sending emails alerting to new documents posted to appellant’s online account – appellant’s assumption that HMRC’s emails were spam – failure to file – whether notice to file ‘given’ to appellant in accordance with TMA s 8 – notice not given by ‘officer of the Board’ – whether reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.646974

Qolaminejite v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Value Added Tax – Undeclared Trading Income): FTTTx 2 Dec 2019

INCOME TAX/VALUE ADDED TAX – whether Appellant had undeclared trading income – time limit for issuing discovery assessment – whether Appellant’s VAT returns were inaccurate – whether Appellant liable for penalty for failure to file self-assessment tax returns – s 93 Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether Appellant’s conduct dishonest/deliberate – s 60 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 713 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Income Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.646937

Dagdelen (T/A Deep Sea Fish Bar) v Revenue and Customs (Vat and Income Tax – Appeal v Compulsory Registration): FTTTx 2 Jan 2020

VAT AND INCOME TAX – appeal against compulsory registration for VAT – penalty for deliberate failure to notify – information received from supplier – self-invigilation by taxpayer and test purchases by HMRC – discovery assessments – time limits – inaccuracy penalties imposed on basis that behaviour deliberate – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 9 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Income Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.646963

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

Income tax – individual tax return – late payment penalty – set off of tax payment against historic penalties – resulting in tax liability remaining unpaid – whether reasonable excuse – no – HMRC has discretion to allocate payment – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 677 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.646895

Stanford Management Services Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Mar 2010

FTTTx Provision of cars to the directors of the company by way of a leasing agreement between the leasing company and the company giving rise to an income tax charge on the directors for the benefit received and a Class 1A National Insurance Contributions charge on the company – whether a nominee or agency agreement was in existence which provided that the company was the nominee or agent for the directors who leased the cars for themselves so that the charges did not arise – whether if such an agreement was in existence it would have prevented the charges from arising.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 98 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.408976

Tim Norton Motor Services Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax and NICS – Benefits In Kind): FTTTx 14 Dec 2020

INCOME TAX AND NICs – benefits in kind – s114 -148 ITEPA – car benefits – whether SORN meant car was not made available.
INCOME TAX – s29TMA discovery assessment – whether discovery stale, s29(2) whether there was generally prevailing practice, whether s 29(5) applied; could a s29 assessment be made in an enquiry window
INCOME TAX- closure notice – whether letter was a closure notice, voluntary returns: whether s 21D TMA applied – effect of transitional provisions in s87(4)FA 2020 – whether s21D validated invalid enquiries.

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 503 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.661822

Padfield and Others v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax and Income Tax – Whether A Loss Arising As A Result of Two Forward Contracts Over Securities): FTTTx 23 Dec 2020

CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND INCOME TAX – whether a loss arising as a result of two forward contracts over securities (and a related acquisition and disposal) which led to a loss in respect of shares or certificates of deposit and a matching gain in respect of gilts was allowable for capital gains tax purposes or deductible against miscellaneous income – no, because the principle outlined in WT Ramsay v IRC applied to the transactions – in addition, in the case of the shares, the loss was not allowable because it arose in connection with arrangements which had securing a tax advantage as a main purpose – whether the acquisition and disposal under the forward contracts were by way of bargain made at arm’s length – yes, because the terms of both contracts, together, could be taken into account for that purpose -whether the consideration paid for the shares under one of the forward contracts was given wholly and exclusively for the shares – the position was unclear – further evidence and submissions would have been required if that question had been relevant to the outcome of the appeals – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 513 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.661815

Kennedy v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 28 Feb 2019

Income tax – fixed and daily penalties for late filing of self-assessment return – appellant filed a paper return late which was followed by her agent filing an electronic return also late – whether reasonable excuse – no – daily penalties calculated by reference to the filing of the first return – whether daily penalties can be reduced by reference to date of filing of electronic return – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 148 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.635706

Martin v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Closure Notice and Amendment To Return): FTTTx 2 Dec 2019

INCOME TAX – closure notice and amendment to 2012-2013 return – HMRC’s disallowance of partnership losses for relief against other income on the basis he was a partner in Great Marlborough LLP which was not trading on a commercial basis with a view to profit – HMRC’s issuing of two letters purporting to open an enquiry – HMRC’s failure to open an enquiry into the partnership return – number of procedural challenges – validity of HMRC’s section 9A TMA 1970 enquiry – validity of HMRC closure notice – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 710 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.646933

Gresham Life Assurance Society v Styles: 1892

Statutory provisions which bring profits and gains into charge to tax are to be construed as directed towards profits and gains in their natural and proper sense – in a sense which no commercial man would misunderstand – and that those words are equally applicable whatever the commercial concern may be.

Judges:

Lord Halsbury LC

Citations:

[1892] AC 309

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.441623

Blackwell (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Mills: 1945

Citations:

(1945) 26 TC 468

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee CA 28-Jul-2010
The taxpayer doctor had claimed against her income tax, the costs of attending training courses required under her employment contract and for professional development. The Revenue appealed against a decision allowing the expenses.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.421591

Dale v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 1954

Payments to trustees, which a testator had directed should be paid from a charitable trust for their work as trustees, were held to be earned income. The Revenue had contended that they were investment income because it was repugnant to the nature of trusteeship that they should receive a profit from the performance of their duties as trustees. A trustee held an office, a term which could describe ‘any position in which services are due by the holder and in which the holder has no employer.’
Lord Normand explained: ‘I think there is confusion here between the source of the payment, which is the testator’s bounty as expressed in his will, and the quality of the payment as earned or not earned. There need be no incompatibility in saying that the income is the conditional gift of the testator but that it has to be earned by compliance with the testator’s condition of serving as a trustee.
I would observe more generally that the question whether income is earned or not is a question which arises between the trustee and the Inland Revenue, and it has no relation either to the legal duty which a trustee owes to the trust and the beneficiaries, or to the legal conception that such a payment as that under consideration derives from a testator and can be regarded as a legacy. The source of the sum and its character as a receipt in the hands of the trustee are two separate and unconnected things’

Judges:

Lord Normand

Citations:

[1954] AC 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPercy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Income Tax

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.236511

Pramanik v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Appeal): FTTTx 14 Nov 2018

INCOME TAX – appeal in relation to a claim for repayment of tax withheld from a sum paid in connection with the termination of employment – application to strike out the appeal on the basis that the First-tier Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal – application upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 673 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.632410

Davies and Others v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 10 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX – transfer of assets abroad – s 739 ICTA 1988, ss 720 and 721 ITA 2007 – exemption from these provisions – s 741 ICTA 1988, s 739 ITA 2007 – purposes of transactions- whether open to First-tier Tribunal to make findings, adverse to the Appellants, as to purposes – yes – whether Appellants entitled to rely on Article 7 of UK/Mauritius double tax treaty – no – whether (if they were) they were out of time to claim relief – yes.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 67 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650134

Singer v Williams (Surveyor of Taxes): HL 17 May 1920

The appellant, who resided in England and was a shareholder in an American corporation, claimed in respect of his income therefrom to be assessed upon the dividends received during the last financial year and not upon the average dividends of the preceding three years. Held that such income was derived from foreign possessions-case 5 of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act 1842-not from foreign securities-case 4-and that the duty therefore fell to be computed on a three years’ average.

Judges:

Lords Cave, Atkinson, Shaw, Wrenbury, and Phillimore

Citations:

[1920] UKHL TC – 7 – 419, [1920] UKHL 386, 59 SLR 386, [1921] 1 AC 41, 7 TC 419

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.631530

Rangos v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Mar 2012

PAYE – appeal against a direction notice requiring the appellant to pay income tax and interest in respect of untaxed remuneration which HMRC alleged he had received as a shadow director – appellant disputed the allegation and the amounts of the payments -the Tribunal found that he was a shadow director but allowed a reduction in the amount of the deemed payments

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 198 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.462635

Healy v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Mar 2012

INCOME TAX – deductions for accommodation and travel and subsistence -were these wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the profession of actor – was base of operation relevant – was expenditure on food incidental to accommodation in rented flat -taxis fares unsupported by evidence-appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 246 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.462617

Bamber, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 4 Apr 2007

The claimant sought to challenge the respondent’s decision as to the increase in flat rate allowances allowed to pilots and air crew at MyTravel.

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 798 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBamber, Regina (on the Application Of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 21-Dec-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.251160

Reid, Emblin v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 3 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX, JUDICIAL REVIEW – Whether adjustments made under s28B(4) of Taxes Management Act 1970 are ‘closure notices’ – whether requirements necessary for issue of accelerated payment notices met – whether HMRC entitled to issue a new accelerated payment notice having withdrawn an earlier notice

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 61 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.650135

Jordan v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Closure Notice): FTTTx 9 Dec 2019

Income tax – closure notice – professional fees and subscription not within requirements of s336 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 – self-employment expenses of pounds 120,000 with income of pounds 5,000 over 46 days not genuine – no expectation of profit – s66 Income Tax Act 2007 – closure notice confirmed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 743 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.646928

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

Income tax – individual tax return – late filing penalty – whether reasonable excuse – agent unable to file return-registration and Form 64-8 – wrong registration code – whether reasonable excuse – no – reliance on third party – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 676 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.646903

Robin St John Sellers v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Default Surcharges): FTTTx 26 Jan 2021

VAT – Default Surcharges – Section 59(7) and 71 VAT Act 1994 – INCOME TAX — late filing and late payment penalties – paragraphs 23 and 16 of Schedules 55 and 56 to the Finance Act 2009 – forty-one penalties between 2007 and 2017 – issue: reasonable excuse – CEC v Steptoe, Perrin v HMRC and Raggatt v HMRC considered – self-employed barrister – late payment of fees by government agencies: legal services commission (LSC) and crown prosecution service (CPS) – cash flow difficulties caused by large aged debt when the LSC and CPS were slow to pay – appeal dismissed for all VAT default surcharge periods – appeal allowed for one income tax late payment penalty for reasonable excuse – no special circumstances

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 27 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Income Tax

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.661747

Saund v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Dec 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – loss relief – shares – s 574 ICTA 1988 – money held in director’s loan account – board resolution to allot shares – company secretary instructed to prepare and issue share certificate and to enter allotment in shareholders’ register – due to external circumstances, latter actions not taken – whether shares issued to director – held, on facts, no – whether, on assumption that shares issued, any loss incurred on shares – whether value had become negligible – held that no evidence of any change of value of shares between board meeting and resolution to wind up company – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 740 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 574

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472781

Brown and Another (T/A Gamekeeper Inn) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Apr 2013

FTTTx Income Tax – Claimed under-payment of Income Tax under the PAYE Regulations – payments to part-time bar workers (generally students) – Penalties under section 98A(2)(a) Taxes Management Act 1970 for failing to deliver returns for PAYE purposes – whether there was neglect, enabling HMRC to make assessments for earlier years – Appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 222 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472797

Mullany’s Coaches Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Dec 2012

FTTTx PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009- director’s mother who had been responsible for the payment of the PAYE for the last eleven years was diagnosed with cancer of the tongue but kept trying to keep up with her work – director initially unaware that she was unable to do so – found – that this was a reasonable excuse for months 8, 9, 10 and 11 – appeal allowed in part and penalty in respect of months 8, 9, 10 and 11 cancelled

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 763 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472778

Edoh v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Dec 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – appeal against a closure notice which added andpound;19,400 to the appellant’s profit for tax year 2004/05 -appellant claimed to have misunderstood implications of a meeting and not to have signed any agreement – appellant produced documents showing that andpound;19,400 was in respect of expenses for contractors supplied by agency – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 787 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472758

Hunt v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Dec 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX -appeal against a penalty charge under Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 for an incorrect self assessment return for the year 2009/10- appellant omitted a bonus from his tax return and the penalty in respect of this careless omission is confirmed – in respect of an extra payment from RBS which they left out of the appellant’s P45 the penalty is cancelled as the appellant had a right to believe that the P45 from the bank would have been carefully prepared and was correct – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 754 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472768

Eurobulk Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Dec 2012

Appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – appellant paying using wrong reference – concerned when informed by HMRC payments not received – held back payments – five different HMRC offices involved – appeal allowed for months 5, 6, and 7 – dismissed for all other months

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 755 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472760

Harrison v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Nov 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – employment – payment made following termination of employment – whether a payment in lieu of notice under terms of employment contract or termination payment falling within Chapter 3 of Part 6 ITEPA 2003 – finding by Employment Tribunal that employer in breach of obligation to give written notice but that such notice given within 3 days – held that payment by employer was made pursuant to employment contract and so taxable as general earnings – position unaffected by continuing provision of benefits for remainder of relevant month – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 737 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472742

Endersham Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Nov 2012

FTTTX Appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – whether fact that appellant was given no specific warning was a reasonable excuse- no – whether lack of knowledge was a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 736 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472739

Alkadhi v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Dec 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – self assessment – enquiry into return – application by taxpayer for closure notice – whether reasonable grounds for not issuing closure notice – on facts, enquiry not complete – application refused
INCOME TAX – taxpayer notice under FA 2008 Sch 36 – whether information and documents reasonably necessary for checking his tax position – whether time limit for complying with requirements inadequate – held, information and documents reasonably required – notice varied by substitution of revised time limit – subject to that variation, notice confirmed – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 741 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472750

Abouzaki Holdings Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 Nov 2012

FTTTx PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – appellant claimed postal delays – Tribunal found this not to be a reasonable excuse – was the penalty unfair – no-appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 721 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472733

D and M Flooring v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Oct 2012

FTTTx Penalty for late filing of Partnership Return – reasonable excuse – Appellant did not have software required for online submission – Agent to blame for not filing a paper return by due date – held: no reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 735 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472730

Ormandi v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Nov 2019

INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – whether determination under Regulation 13 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 must take into account sub-contractors’ tax positions not reflected in a direction under Regulation 9(5) – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 667 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.646902

Nap Anglia Ltd v The Commissioners Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Mar 2013

FTTTx PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – appellant had a genuine belief that following an unexpected financial loss it had an arrangement with HMRC that it could pay its PAYE as and when it received its VAT repayments – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 163 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2009 56

Income Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472417

Tailor v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Mar 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – SAYE share option scheme – paragraph 37(a) Schedule 3 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 – whether PAYE should have been deducted- Appellant allowed self-assessment credit for PAYE that should have been deducted – management buy-out – special terms for management shareholders – Appellant accepting takeover offer made to non-management shareholders – whether options exercised pursuant to a ‘general offer’ for all share capital with result that PAYE should not have been deducted – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 199 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472427

Healey v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Mar 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Discount – Flexi Notes – Floating Rate Notes stripped of interest for a certain period sold to Appellant as part of a Flexi-Note package – Increment realised on sale by Appellant at end of the period – Whether increment taxable as profits or gains under Case III of Schedule D

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 176 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472404