ASSESSMENT – whether notice of assessment required to state the statutory provision under which assessment is made – no – appeal dismissed.’

[2011] UKUT 59 (TCC), [2011] STI 530, [2011] BTC 1608, [2011] STC 1119
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.440801

An English assurance company, which carried on its business partly in foreign countries, invested its trading balances in the respective countries on the spot either as statutory deposits or to form a local reserve fund. The Crown claimed to tax the interest on such investments as profits within case 1 of Sched. D of the Income Tax Act 1842. The company claimed to be assessed only under case 4 in respect of sums actually received in Great Britain.
Held that the interest and dividends derived from the said investments irrespective of their object formed part of the company’s trading profit and were assessable under case 1 of Sched. D.

Earl Loreburn and Lords Shaw, Mersey, and Parker
[1913] UKHL 575, 51 SLR 575
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.632749

PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009- whether lack of specific warning was a reasonable excuse – no- appeal dismissed but penalty rate reduced in respect of one month as late payment due to technical fault at HMRC

[2012] UKFTT 629 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.466199

Income Tax – Partial surrenders of overseas life policies – Method of calculating gains in respect of such policies – Appeal dismissed

[2011] UKFTT 360 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.442783

INCOME TAX – PAYE – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – penalty for late payment – held payments under time to pay agreement only excluded where due after agreement requested – Whether penalty disproportionate – No – Whether a reasonable excuse for late payment – No – Whether ‘special circumstances’ justifying a special reduction – No – Appeal dismissed

[2012] UKFTT 659 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.466207

UTTC Income Tax – loss relief – arrangements for exploitation of intellectual property rights – whether first-year losses incurred – whether large part of money paid for exploitation of rights or purchase of guaranteed income stream – whether remainder used within first accounting year and allowable loss in that year -appeals against First-tier Tribunal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 361 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570415

UTTC INCOME TAX – discovery assessments made against taxpayer relying on extended time limits on grounds of deliberate conduct – death of taxpayer – whether assessments should be discharged on grounds personal representative cannot receive a fair trial – ss 29 and 36 TMA 1970 -Art 6 Human Rights Convention-appeal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 346 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570173

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Appeal – Application for re-instatement of appeal – PAYE – underpaid tax -change to coding notice -appealable decision – Held – appeal no real prospect of success – appeal not reinstated.

[2016] UKFTT 648 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570061

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – failure to deduct tax from payments made to sub-contractors – refusal of direction to relieve contractor from obligation to withhold – whether contractor took reasonable care – yes whether error made in good faith – yes – appeal allowed – Regulation 9 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005

[2012] UKFTT 708 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.466646

INCOME TAX -late payment surcharges – time to pay arrangement for underpayment of PAYE – whether superseded on transfer of taxpayer to self-assessment – no – appeal allowed – section 108 Finance Act 2009

[2012] UKFTT 653 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.466242

Income tax – closure notice – application to appeal out of time – refused on basis of insufficient action by taxpayer and advisers following issue of closure notice

[2011] UKFTT 33 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.442789

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons – Equal treatment – Income tax – Exemption of income derived from part-time employment as a teacher with a legal person governed by public law established in a Member State of the European Union or in a State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 applies – Legislation of a Member State excluding from that exemption income derived from such employment with a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland

ECLI:EU:C:2016:705, [2016] EUECJ C-478/15
Bailii
European

Income Tax

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569520

[2021] UKFTT 384 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.669763

INCOME TAX – deduction of mortgage interest – apportion to business purposes – not on facts – Appeal dismissed

[2011] UKFTT 59 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.442836

FTTTx Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income – PAYE – direction under reg 72(5) that liability to be transferred to employee – whether tax deducted – meaning of ‘deducted’ – tax remaining unpaid by employer – allocation of remuneration to discharge loan account – held on facts that this constituted payment of remuneration and that tax was deducted – National Insurance Contributions – primary contributions remaining unpaid by employer – decision by HMRC that employee liable to pay these contributions – whether employer wilfully failed to pay – held on facts that failure not wilful – no basis for transfer to employee of liabilities either for income tax or primary NICs – appeal allowed

[2016] UKFTT 536 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569005

FTTTX INCOME TAX – alleged suppression of takings – quantum – whether officer’s assumptions justified – VAT – assessments – penalty assessment – whether validly made – appeals dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 544 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568958

INCOME TAX – high income child benefit charge – penalties for failure to notify – amount of penalties reduced – appeal allowed in part

[2020] UKFTT 273 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.652726

Income tax – Higher income child benefit charge – penalties for failure to notify – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

[2020] UKFTT 255 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.652280

Income Tax – late payment penalty – whether reasonable excuse – No – Appeal Dismissed.

[2020] UKFTT 302 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.653136

Income Tax – penalties for late returns – reasonable excuse.

[2019] UKFTT 617 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.644050

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment) – Appeal against closure notice amending self assessment – appeal against discovery assessments – increase in assessments – burden of proof – treatment of unidentified receipts as taxable income – appeal allowed in part

[2016] UKFTT 506 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.567976

INCOME TAX – NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – employee given free bus pass by employer – whether exempt from tax under ITEPA s 243 as ‘financial or other support for a public transport road service’ – link to non-cash voucher legislation – whether pre-enacting history can be considered – whether other contributions by employer to bus company satisfied statutory test – whether zonal bus tickets satisfy that test – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 520 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.567969

Denial of ‘sideways relief’ for losses deriving from his farming business

Lord Justice Green
Lord Justice Birss
And
Lady Justice Whipple
[2022] EWCA Civ 19
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.671056

[2016] UKFTT 532 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567960

FTTTx INCOME TAX – self assessment – closure notices – discovery assessments – whether business records adequate – whether sales omitted – whether full disclosure of bank accounts – onus of proof – presumption of continuity – Taxes Management Act 1970 ss. 9A, 12B, 28A, 29, 34, 36, 49G, 50 and 95; Finance Act 2007 Schedule 24 – whether additional assessments should stand good; yes – penalty determinations and assessments – whether ‘negligent’ and ‘deliberate’; yes – whether penalty reduction for disclosure sufficient; yes – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 504 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567956

PENALTY – careless inaccuracy – FA 2007, Sch 24 – HMRC deciding not to suspend penalty – Sch 24, para 14 – whether HMRC’s decision ‘flawed’ – judicial review principles – Sch 24, para 17

[2016] UKFTT 527 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567964

Appeal by the taxpayer, Mr Chappell, against an amendment made to his self-assessment tax return for the year 2005-06. The purpose and effect of the amendment (made by a closure notice dated 1 November 2010) was to disallow a deduction from his total income for that year totalling andpound;303,123. The effect of the deduction (if allowable) would have been to reduce Mr Chappell’s total income from andpound;553,321 to andpound;250,198. On that basis he would have been entitled to claim a repayment of income tax of andpound;131,039.48.

[2016] EWCA Civ 809
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567951

FTTTx Income Tax – Employed and self employed income – Claim for deduction of expenses – claim not proportionate or reasonable – lack of documentary evidence – onus of proof not discharged by Appellant – deductions which were allowed proportionate in the circumstances – Appeal dismissed.

[2010] UKFTT 571 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567564

The Income Tax Act 1853 enacts-Section 2-‘For the purpose of classifying and distinguishing the several properties, profits, and gains for and in respect of which the said duties are by this Act granted, and for the purposes of the provisions for assessing, raising, levying, and collecting such duties respectively, the said duties shall be deemed to be granted and made payable yearly for and in respect of the several properties, profits, and gains respectively described or comprised in the several schedules contained in this Act, and marked respectively A, B, C, D, and E, and to be charged under such respective schedules-that is to say,’ Schedule B, ‘for and in respect of the occupation of all such lands, tenements, hereditaments, and heritages as aforesaid, and to be charged for every twenty shillings of the annual value thereof.’ Schedule D-‘For and in respect of the annual profits or gains arising or accruing to any person residing in the United Kingdom from any kind of property whatever . . and for and in respect of the annual profits or gains arising or accruing to any person residing in the United Kingdom from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, whether the same shall be respectively carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and to be charged for every twenty shillings of the annual amount of such profits and gains.’
The above schedules replace Schedules B and D of the Income Tax Act 1842, but the cases and rules applicable to the Schedules B and D of that Act are still operative, and of these the following are the first and sixth cases under Schedule D:-First Case-‘Duties to be charged in respect of any trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern in the nature of trade, not contained in any other schedule of this Act.’ Sixth Case-‘The duty to be charged in respect of any annual profits or gains not falling under any of the foregoing rules, and not charged by virtue of any of the other schedules contained in this Act.’
The tenant and occupier of a mixed farm of 400 acres at a rent of pounds 580 kept a stallion which he used to serve his own mares on the farm, and also to serve mares belonging to others. The mares were either served at the farm or at other places where the stallion attended under the care of the owner’s servants. The owner was assessed under Schedule B of the Act of 1853 upon the rental of his farm as tenant thereof, and in the year of assessment his gross earnings from the stallion amounted to pounds 290. The Commissioners for the General Purposes of the Income Tax decided to assess the owner of the stallion upon the profits derived from its ownership under Schedule D of the Act of 1853, in respect that the use made by the owner of the stallion was a use that provided a profit that did not arise in respect of the occupation of his lands. Held that the question of the use made of the stallion was a question of fact, and that the Commissioners, decision was final.

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Finlay, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Atkinson
[1919] UKHL TC – 7 – 99, [1919] UKHL 224, 56 SLR 224
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.632769

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 – case A and case B definition for reduction for disclosure – whether reasonable excuse for being unaware of the change in legislation – whether special reductions – the matter of interest charge – appeal allowed in part

[2018] UKFTT 689 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.632398

FTTTx Income tax: trading profits – amendments to self assessment upheld

[2010] UKFTT 547 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567531

FTTTx Regulation 80, PAYE Regulations – Section 8, Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Act 1999 – whether sums paid into a share scheme were earnings of the staff for whom they were paid – whether the shares purchased as part of the scheme were restricted securities within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 – whether the share scheme was within the scope of that Chapter
‘The aim was at first that there should be a complete offset between the loss to an employee if the trigger event occurred with the result communicated to senior management that there would be no reduction in value in the payout to the employee. He or she would receive the same whether or not the trigger event occurred. At some point someone thought a deliberate near miss was better than an exact hit in terms of offsetting the loss. As the trigger event did not occur, this was not tested … [T]he reality was that the scheme as a whole was carefully designed so that employees could not suffer any significant loss if the trigger event was realised. The reality of the risk was that an employee stood about a 10% chance of losing 0.8% of the bonus amount to be weighed against the opportunity to remove a 41% tax charge.’ and ‘The effect was that, at the close of the relevant period, ESIP Ltd would either have shares unaffected by the trigger event, or shares affected by the trigger event plus the benefits from the options. The scheme was originally so constructed that the values of the beneficial interests of individuals in the shares would have been the same under either of those two outcomes. This was then altered to create a small ‘loss’. The effect of the trigger event was the reduction in the value of the [shares] by a predetermined amount. The options purchased were of such a value that the sums received under the options if the trigger event occurred totalled slightly less than the loss in the value of the shares, again by a predetermined amount. Both figures were artificial in the sense that neither was determined by, or could be influenced by, any event outside the control of those establishing the scheme, or could alter once the shares and options were purchased. UBS as employer and the individual recipients as employees knew from the start of the scheme that the employees, as shareholders, would receive the money paid in by UBS from one or both of the parallel elements a few weeks later save, in the unlikely occurrence of the trigger event, to a deliberately determined and insignificant extent.’

[2010] UKFTT 366 (TC)
Bailii
Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Act 1999 8, Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
At FTTTx – UBS AG v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 17-Sep-2012
UTTC Income Tax and NICs: scheme to deliver bonuses in form of shares avoiding income tax and NIC. S18(1) ITEPA Rule 2 – whether employee became ‘entitled to payment’ when amount of bonus determined. Ch 2 Part 7 . .
At FTTTx – UBS Ag and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 9-Mar-2016
UBS AG devised an employee bonus scheme to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the 2003 Act, with the sole purpose other than tax avoidance, and such consequential advantages as would flow from tax avoidance. Several pre-ordained steps . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567523

Appeal against penalty imposed for late filing of income tax return.

Lord Dson MR, Kitchin, Hamblen LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 761
Bailii
Finance Act 2009 Sch 55
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567246

The case concerned the liability of Captain Barnato for super-tax on the sums which he received under a judgment for an account against his former partners in the dissolved firm of Barnato Brothers. The sums found due on the taking of the account included an award of interest on the capital sums due down to payment. In order to be assessable to tax they had to constitute interest within the meaning of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act 1918. The argument for the taxpayer (as in Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd) was that the interest was in substance damages or compensation and was not therefore taxable as ‘interest of money’.

[1936] 2 All ER 1176, (1936) 20 Tax Cas 455
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) SC 13-Mar-2019
The Court was asked whether interest payable under rule 14.23(7) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 is ‘yearly interest’ within the meaning of section 874 of the Income Tax Act 2007. If so, the administrators must deduct income tax before paying interest . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.671253

INCOME TAX – late filing penalty – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 433 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566685

INCOME TAX – Deduction against profits – travelling expenses and subsistence -self-employed commercial pipe fitter – trips to various sites for different companies – home business base – discovery enquiry in time- appeal allowed in part.

[2011] UKFTT 91 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.442814

appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009-whether insufficiency of funds was a reasonable excuse for the late payment – no- specifically excluded by paragraph 16 of Schedule 56 – whether the penalty disproportionate – no it was as laid down by the legislation – appeal dismissed

[2012] UKFTT 684 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.466247

Income tax – underdeclaration of profits – amendment to self-assessment – declared profits obviously inconsistent with payments made to Appellant discovered in PAYE audit of company which engaged him – Appellant claimed to have made his return based on advice from local HMRC office – destroyed all supporting papers before emigrating – whether he could show amendment was incorrect – no – whether relevant time limit observed – yes – appeal substantially dismissed

[2011] UKFTT 99 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.442894

Appeal against decision to withdraw Gross Payment Status. Decision withdrawn by HMRC. Application by appellant for costs on basis that HMRC unreasonably defended appeal. Application by Appellant for names of those involved in making the withdrawal decision. Application refused.

[2021] UKFTT 344 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.669749

BELATED NOTIFICATION PENALTY – Mitigation – Appellant overpaid income tax by reason of his failure to register for VAT – Overpaid income tax not reclaimable – Penalty imposed after reclaim became time-barred – Irrecoverable income tax greater than penalty – Whether proper to mitigate penalty to nil amount – Yes – VATA 1994 s.70

[2012] UKFTT 499 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.466139

A defaulting trustee who had misappropriated trust property entered into a deed dated 27 March 1930 by which he covenanted to pay a principal sum which was made up of the amount of the trust monies he was obliged to account for together with compound interest at 5 per cent per annum up to 1 January 1930. The deed also provided for the payment of interest from 1 January 1930 until payment of the principal sum. The question arose as to whether the interest element of the principal sum was yearly interest and therefore deductible by the taxpayer under s.24 of the Finance Act 1923 (as amended by the Finance Act 1927). It was not in dispute that the continuing interest was deductible but the Special Commissioners decided that the interest element included in the principal sum was either a capital sum or, if interest, was not yearly interest.
Held: Finlay J followed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Barnato and held that the amount of interest comprised in the principal sum fell to be treated as interest rather than a capital payment. That left him to consider whether it was also yearly interest and, again, he differed from the Special Commissioners:
‘The general position of the law was laid down a long time ago in the case of Bebb v Bunny, 1 Kay and J. 216, where the matter was fully discussed by Page Wood, V.-C., and that decision, though I think there has once or twice been some doubt cast upon it, was a correct decision. A distinction was drawn very much later in a case of Goslings and Sharpe v Blake, but that case had reference to a very different subject matter, interest on a banker’s short loan. It is very well known that in the City of London bankers lend money for very short periods, sometimes it is actually a period of hours, for a week or a fortnight or a month, and what was held there was that the decision in Bebb v Bunny did not apply to these bankers’ short loans and that interest on these loans was not yearly interest of money. That appears to me to be a very different subject matter from this, and I think it would be enough to say that in my opinion upon this point of yearly interest of money this clearly is yearly interest of money, and I think that Bebb v Bunny shows that. I will add on this point, although I think the point does not appear to be expressly raised, that Barnato’s case is in point and that the interest in Barnato’s case seems to me to have been exactly of the same nature as the interest here, and it does not appear there to have been suggested that the interest was not yearly interest of money. It seems to me, therefore, that that case, though I quite agree the point was not precisely raised, is in point here also.’

Finlay J
(1937) 21 Tax Cas 354
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) SC 13-Mar-2019
The Court was asked whether interest payable under rule 14.23(7) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 is ‘yearly interest’ within the meaning of section 874 of the Income Tax Act 2007. If so, the administrators must deduct income tax before paying interest . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.671252

Self-assessment – penalty – interest – surcharge for late payment of tax – whether insufficiency of funds a reasonable excuse – no – whether taxpayer’s use of funds a reasonable excuse – no – whether HMRC had discretion to mitigate interest – no – whether HMRC had discretion to mitigate surcharge – yes – HMRC’s failure to exercise discretion – whether Tribunal had power to review failure to exercise discretion – no – appeal dismissed.

[2011] UKFTT 119 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.442897

FTTTX Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment

[2016] UKFTT 375 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565167

FTTTx (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty)

[2016] UKFTT 364 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565172

FTTTx Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty

[2016] UKFTT 363 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565168