Category: Income Tax

Hughes and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Aug 2014

FTTTx Penalty for late online filing of Employer’s Annual Return – Appellant delegated task to an agent which erroneously believed that the business had been transferred to a new owner which would file the return – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 788 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535969

Fisher v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Aug 2014

FTTTx Income tax – penalty for late filing of return – Appellant submitted information relating to income in a claim for a repayment and although HMRC required a return the Appellant assumed a return was unnecessary – whether a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 813 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535964

Oddy (T/A CMO Bird Proofing Specialists) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jul 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Construction Industry Scheme – monthly returns – penalties – whether returns submitted on time – whether HMRC records conclusive – no – s 7 Interpretation Act 1978 – evidence as to arrangements for posting – on balance of evidence, held returns posted in sufficient time to be received by due dates – appeal allowed

[2014] UKFTT 3796 TC
Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535949

Freiberga v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Aug 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – surcharges under s 59C (2) Taxes Management Act 1974 late payment of tax- whether reasonable excuse – appellant’s illness-medical certificates- time in prison- whether reasonable excuse for the ‘period of default’ – no reasonable excuse for the final few months – surcharges confirmed

[2014] UKFTT 746 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1974 59C(2)

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535805

Falconwood Employment Agency Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Aug 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalties – late payment of PAYE and NICs – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – whether reasonable excuse due to insufficiency of funds – no- whether penalty unfair – no – whether penalty disproportionate – no.

[2014] UKFTT 757 (TC)
Bailii

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535803

The Knoll Care Home Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Aug 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalties – late payment of PAYE and NICs – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – whether reasonable excuse due to insufficiency of funds – no – whether reasonable excuse due to failure to warn – no – whether penalty unfair – no – whether penalty disproportionate – no.

[2014] UKFTT 756 (TC)
Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535811

Key Recruitment (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Aug 2014

FTTTx Income tax – Appellant claimed that payments made to directors were dividends but had been erroneously paid as remuneration – amended forms P35 which created PAYE and NIC ‘overpayment’ – amendments not accepted by HMRC – Regulation 80 Determinations – whether Appellant had provided sufficient evidence to show payments were dividends – no – Appeal dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 755 (TC)
Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535809

Roper v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Jul 2014

FTTTx Penalty for late payment of income tax – Appellant diagnosed as having terminal illness – Appellant filed return on time and calculated his own tax liability – no request for a time to pay arrangement – whether in the circumstances reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 736 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535793

Devaraj v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Jul 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Appellant sub-postmaster receiving termination payment on closure of sub-post office – business carried on together with that of a stationery shop – payment made at time of acquisition described as goodwill – whether payment deductible from termination payment – ITEPA 2003 s 336(1) – held, not deductible – whether any alternative basis for deduction – no – appeal dismissed

Jihn Clark TJ
[2014] UKFTT 713 (TC)
Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535348

Quartet Books Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Jul 2014

FTTTx Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009, Schedule 56 – Whether an insufficiency of funds was a reasonable excuse for late payment – no – whether lack of specific warning a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – whether the penalty was disproportionate – no – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 719 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535345

Kabir v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Jul 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – PAYE – Penalties and income tax – Whether sufficient evidence to displace decisions under s 8 Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions Etc.) Act 1999, Regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 determinations, Closure Notice and discovery assessments – No – Whether reasonable excuse for failure to submit employers’ annual returns – No evidence from appellant – Appeals dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 707 (TC)
Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535336

Turullols v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jul 2014

FTTTx Income tax – taxability of payments made to a ‘whistle blower’ pursuant to order for interim relief under s 129 Employment Rights Act 1996 in connection with a ‘protected disclosure’ for the purposes of s 43A and 103A ERA 96 – whether taxable under s 62 ITEPA 2003 or only taxable to the extent exceeding andpound;30,000 under s 403 ITEPA 2003 – held the payments were not emoluments of the employment, therefore exempt from tax up to andpound;30,000 – appeal allowed

[2014] UKFTT 672 (TC)
Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.534289

OCO Ltd and Toughglaze (Uk) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income): FTTTx 4 Jul 2017

Income Tax – EBT Scheme – discretionary power of appointment – allocation of amounts to sub-trust in respect of directors and families – no appointment of sums by trustees to directors – directors received benefits mainly in form of interest free loans made by trustees: Whether sums contributed to EBT / Sub-trust / payment of loan amounted to earnings subject to PAYE / NICs
Issues: Whether contribution to EBT was redirection of earnings? – No- Whether despite no allegation of Snook sham being made discretionary trust was really a bare trust applying case law approach of Autoclenz v Belcher and Antoniades v Villiers? – No – Whether payment of earnings applying Ramsay approach – yes – appeals dismissed

[2017] UKFTT 589 (TC), [2018] SFTD 123
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.592619

Mason v Innes: 1967

The court considered the taxation of gifts of literary or other professional works.

[1967] 44 TC 326
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sharkey v Wernher HL 1955
Where a trader takes stock from his business for private use or for use in another business which he owns, or where he transfers to his business stock which he owns in some other capacity than that of proprietor of that business, the transfer should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.259432

Sharkey v Wernher: HL 1955

Where a trader takes stock from his business for private use or for use in another business which he owns, or where he transfers to his business stock which he owns in some other capacity than that of proprietor of that business, the transfer should be dealt with for taxation purposes as if it were a sale or purchase at market value. Thus, goods that a trader takes from his trading stock, for example, for the personal use and enjoyment of himself and members of his household, should be credited at market value.

[1955] 36 TC 275, [1956] AC 58
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Watson Brothers v Hornby 1942
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Ransom (Inspector of Taxes) v Higgs, etc HL 13-Nov-1974
A company had devised two elaborate schemes with a view to avoiding income tax. Lord Wilberforce discussed the definition of ‘trade’: ‘`Trade’ cannot be precisely defined, but certain characteristics can be identified which trade normally has. . .
Cited – Rangatira Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue PC 2-Dec-1996
. .
Cited – Mason v Innes 1967
The court considered the taxation of gifts of literary or other professional works. . .
Cited – Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked whether a warehouse used to store purchases made by the company from its parent company in Austria, was an ‘industrial building or structure’. It was agreed that the facility was used for the storage of materials for use in later . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.259431

Deeny and Others v Gooda Walker Ltd and Others: QBD 26 Jan 1995

Damages awards received by Lloyds’ names for their managing agents’ negligence were taxable as trading income, since they were revenue receipts.

Ind Summary 27-Feb-1995, Times 26-Jan-1995
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Deeny and Others v Gooda Walker Ltd and Others QBD 5-May-1995
A decision as to an agent’s liability may be deferred pending decisions in other courts on anticipated claims. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Damages

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.79874

Sinclair v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 17 Dec 2018

INCOME TAX AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Post-cessation Trade Relief – whether valid trust created – whether trust can be ‘payment’ – if there was a payment, was it a ‘qualifying payment’ – were there ‘relevant tax avoidance arrangements’

[2018] UKFTT 740 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.632477

Nelson v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jan 2019

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment – INCOME TAX – invalid Closure Notice ‘replaced’ by discovery assessment – whether Tribunal misled – whether discovery stale – further assessments based on presumption of continuity – whether Appellant engaged in a single business in partnership with his father and his wife – whether expenditure schedule provided was for the family or for the Appellant alone – extent of debt – whether Appellant’s behaviour was ‘deliberate’ – assessments and penalties cancelled and appeals allowed

[2019] UKFTT 36 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.632699

Craig and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income): FTTTx 22 Mar 2016

Moneys paid as accommodation allowances – Whether earnings? – Section 62 ITEPA 2003 – Yes – Whether exempt from charge under section 99 ITEPA? – No – Whether incurred wholly exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of employment? – Section 336 ITEPA 2003 – No – Appeals against Closure Notices dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 194 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.561887

Didlick v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment): FTTTx 22 Mar 2016

Income tax – incorrect returns – HMRC amendments to self-assessment return in respect of profits of self-employment – whether HMRC had incorrectly disallowed expenditure – on the facts, no – whether assessment correctly calculated – yes – whether penalties correctly assessed – yes – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 197 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.561889

Oziegbe v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Jun 2014

FTTTx Income Tax and PAYE liabilities – National Insurance contribution liabilities – whether the security guards that the Appellant provided to various building sites were agency workers such that the Appellant was liable for PAYE and NIC deductions in respect of the amounts paid to them – Appeal allowed

Nowlan TJ
[2014] UKFTT 608 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533706

Sargent v Barnes: ChD 1978

The dental surgeon taxpayer travelled to his dental surgery from home by car every day, a distance of about 11 miles. He also maintained a laboratory where a dental technician worked, about 1 mile from his home and almost directly on the route between his home and his surgery. He stopped off at the laboratory every morning and evening, to pick up or deliver dentures and to discuss matters with his technician. He claimed to deduct the cost of travel between his surgery and the laboratory. The laboratory was set up in an outbuilding of Mr Barnes’ father’s house.
Held: Oliver J concluded that ‘it would in my judgment be a travesty to say that the taxpayer was in any relevant sense carrying on his practice as a dentist at [the laboratory]’. He held that Mr Barnes’ ‘base of operations where the practice was carried on’ was at the surgery. Just because the journeys to the laboratory were ‘necessary’ (as the General Commissioners had held), that did not mean the expense of them was incurred ‘solely or exclusively for the purposes of the practice’. The journeys were in essence journeys between his home and his ‘base of operations’ at his surgery and he was simply using the journey to and from his home to visit the laboratory. The essential character of the journey remained unchanged and for that reason it could not be regarded as satisfying the statutory test.

Oliver J
[1978] 1 WLR 823, [1978] 2 All ER 737
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Newsom v Robertson ChD 30-Apr-1952
Mr Newsom, a practising barrister sought to set off against his income, the expenses of travelling between his home and his chambers in London. The Inspector appealed the decision of the commissioners that he could do so. The rule required that the . .
Cited – Horton v Young CA 1972
A bricklayer sought to set against his income tax, the expenses of travelling to and from his home to work.
Held: The taxpayer travelled from home to sites within a 55 mile radius. The home was his base of operations, and the expenses were . .

Cited by:
Cited – Samadian v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 28-Jan-2013
FTTTx INCOME TAX – self-employed consultant geriatrician with office at home where he performed significant business functions – travel between home, places of employment and private hospitals where he saw . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.503551

Devon and Cornwall Surfacing Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 May 2010

Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – failure of ‘Compliance test’ – Reliance on Company Secretary – Whether a reasonable excuse on facts – Yes – Appeal allowed – section 66 and schedule 11 Finance Act 2004

[2010] UKFTT 199 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.422222

Febrey v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 20 Dec 2018

INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (NICs) – discovery assessments – directions that the appellant be made personally liable for under-deductions of PAYE and a decision that the same applies to under-payments of NICs – appeal allowed.

[2018] UKFTT 764 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.632445

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell (Inspector of Taxes): CA 10 Dec 1981

An unincorporated association is defined as ‘two or more persons bound together for one or more common purposes, not being business purposes, by mutual undertakings each having mutual duties and obligations, in an organisation which has rules which identify in whom control of it and its funds rests and on what terms and which can be joined or left at will.’

Lawton, Brightman, Fox LJJ
[1982] 1 WLR 522, [1981] EWCA Civ 2, [1982] 2 All ER 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hunt and Another v McLaren and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .
Cited – Boyle, Regina (On the Application of) v Haverhill Pub Watch and Others Admn 8-Oct-2009
The claimant had been banned from public houses under the Haverhill Pub Watch scheme. He now sought judicial review of a decision to extend his ban for a further two years. The Scheme argued that it was not a body amenable to judicial review, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Income Tax

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.245258

Morris v Commissioners of Revenue and Customs: ChD 8 Mar 2006

The taxpayer used a motor home/camper van as a base for his business. The inspector sought to tax it as a benefit received.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal failed. It was not a car in the ordinary sense, and it was used mainly not for transport but as an office. The section gave a wide definition to ‘car’ as ‘any mechanically propelled road vehicle’ which description covered the van. The conclusion, even if severe, was that the van was caught by the legislation, and taxable.

Park J
Times 13-Apr-2006
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 16895)
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.241294

Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Oceanic Contractors Inc: HL 16 Dec 1982

HL Income tax, Schedule E – Non-resident employer – Employees working in U.K. sector of North Sea – Whether employer liable to deduct tax from emoluments – Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s 181 and s 204 – Finance Act 1973, 5 38 – Continental Shelf Act 1964 – A foreign company which was not resident in, but maintained places of business within the United Kingdom, engaged personnel (United Kingdom residents and others) to work on barges and other vessels in the United Kingdom sector and other sectors of the North Sea. The employees were paid in U.S. dollars by cheques drawn in Brussels on a New York bank account. Cheques might be (a) deposited in a bank designated by the employee, (b) seat to any person designated by the employee or (c) delivered to the employee himself on his barge or vessel.
The House considered the principle of statutory interpretation that a statute should be confined to the territory within which it operates. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘That principle, which is really a rule of construction of statutes expressed in general terms, and which as James LJ said is a ‘broad principle’, requires an enquiry to be made as to the persons with respect to whom Parliament is presumed, in the particular case, to be legislating. Who, it is to be asked, is within the legislative grasp or intendment, of the statute under consideration?’ and
Lord Scarman said: ‘the general principle . . is simply that, unless the contrary is expressly enacted or is so plainly implied that the courts must give effect to it, United Kingdom legislation is applicable only to British subjects or to foreigners who by coming to the United Kingdom, whether for a short or a long time, have made themselves subject to British jurisdiction. Two points would seem to be clear: first, that the principle is a rule of construction only, and secondly, that it contemplates mere presence within the jurisdiction as sufficient to attract the application of British legislation.’
Whether and to what extent a law applies in relation to foreigners outside the jurisdiction depends upon who is ‘within the legislative grasp, or intendment’ of the relevant provision.

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Scarman
[1983] 2 AC 130, [1982] UKHL TC – 56 – 183
Bailii
Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 181 204, Finance Act 1973 38, Continental Shelf Act 1964
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Ex parte Blain; In re Sawers CA 1-Aug-1879
Where legislation regulates the conduct of an individual, it may be so construed as to limit it to conduct by United Kingdom citizens anywhere.
James LJ referred to ‘broad, general, universal principle that English legislation, unless the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Serco Ltd v Lawson and Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 23-Jan-2004
The applicant had been employed to provide services to RAF in the Ascension Islands. He alleged constructive dismissal. There was an issue as to whether somebody working in the Ascension Islands was protected by the 1996 Act. The restriction on . .
Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary CA 30-Jul-1997
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . .
Cited – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
Cited – Agassi v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes HL 17-May-2006
The tax payer played tennis and was paid sums for when he played in England. The sums were paid to his overseas based company.
Held: The revenue’s appeal succeeded. The ‘legislative intendment in relation to sections 555 and 556, and their . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank PlC and Others HL 31-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether the liability of a credit card company under the 1974 Act applied where the contract was performed abroad and subject to foreign law.
Held: The principle which disapplied an English statute in an extra-territorial . .
Mentioned – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag SC 2-Apr-2014
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.192277

Baylis v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income): FTTTx 26 Oct 2016

Benefits in kind – family company paid care home fees for Mrs Baylis, wife of one employee and mother of another – whether contract with care home made in a personal capacity or as agent for employer – agency law considered and applied – held, contracted as agent – provision of the care therefore benefit in kind for family member – whether statute directs which of two possible employees liable to benefit in kind charge – whether a matter of employer’s discretion – reliance on Vestey – other personal expenses paid by employer – whether taken into account when dividends calculated – whether benefits in kind – appeal allowed

Judge Anne Redston
[2016] UKFTT 725 (TC), [2017] SFTD 217
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.571792

Flash Film Transport Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Jan 2019

INCOME TAX – application to make a late appeal – whether an appeal can be made directly to the Tribunal – whether an appeal can be made by more than one Appellant in single document – whether a late appeal application to HMRC is valid if it fails to include a submission on reasonable excuse – whether a late appeal application in relation to an assessment also includes the related penalty – application over one year late – Martland considered and applied – application refused

[2019] UKFTT 4 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.632691

Advantage Business Finance Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jan 2019

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty) PENALTIES – late filing of ATED return – Schedule 55 to FA 2009 – whether retrospective notices meet the requirement under para 4(1)(c) for the daily penalties to be imposable – whether para 17(3) capping provision applies – whether the 6-month late filing penalty ‘fixed’ or ‘tax-geared’ – whether reasonable excuse or special circumstances – proportionality – appeal allowed in part

[2019] UKFTT 30 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.632686

Pike v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 20 Jun 2014

The taxpayer challenged rejection of his claim for a loss relief arising from a ‘relevant discounted security’ within the meaning of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996.
Held: It would only be such if, taking the security as at the time of its issue, the amount payable on maturity, or on any redemption before maturity, would or might be an amount ‘involving a deep gain’. Such amount will involve a deep gain if the issue price is relevantly less than the amount so payable. In identifying the amount so payable, however, paragraph 3(6) requires to be left out of account ‘any amount payable on that occasion by way of interest’.
Held: The appeal failed.
Rimer LJ said: ‘It was possible to identify certain characteristics of an amount payable by way of interest. First, it is calculated by reference to an underlying debt. Second, it is a payment made according to time, by way of compensation for the use of money. Third, the sum payable accrues from day to day or at other periodic intervals. Fourth, whilst the payment so accrues, it does not, in order for it to be interest, have to be paid at any intervals: it is possible for interest not to become payable until the principal becomes payable (see Willingale). Fifth, what the payment is called is not determinative; the question must always be one as to its true nature. Sixth, the fact that an interest payment may be aggregated with a payment of a different nature does not ‘denature’ the interest payment.’

Rimer, Tomlinson, Underhill LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 824
Bailii
Finance Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – Pike v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 4-May-2011
FTTTx Income tax – whether a security was a relevant discounted security – security paying on redemption a sum calculated as 7.25% per annum accruing daily – whether ‘interest’ includes sums not paid periodically . .
Appeal from – Pike v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 10-May-2013
UTTC INCOME TAX – claim for loss on disposal of loan stock – whether loan stock a ‘relevant discounted security’ – FA 1996, Sch 13, para 3 – whether additional payment on redemption of loan stock was interest – . .
Cited – Willingale (Inspector of Taxes) v International Commercial Bank Ltd HL 1978
Discount on a commercial bill differs from interest because, unlike interest, it does not accrue from day to day. If the discount is income, it is assessable to the holder at maturity or when the bill is sold by the holder to a third party because . .
Cited – Chevron Petroleum UK Ltd v BP Petroleum Ltd ChD 1981
The fact that an interest payment may be aggregated with a payment of a different nature does not ‘denature’ the interest payment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.526962

Figg v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Jun 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – relocation benefits – no change in residence due to cessation of employment – does relief apply – penalties and surcharges for late payment of income tax and late filing of tax returns – section 271 ITEPA 2003 – s59C and s93 TMA 1970

[2014] UKFTT 578 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 59C 93

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.526918

Howes v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Jun 2014

FTTTx Income tax – Penalties under s 59C Taxes Management Act 1970 and Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 for late payment of income tax – Appellant believed that a time to pay arrangement that had been agreed for tax due in the previous year continued and covered tax due in the following tax year – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal disallowed

[2014] UKFTT 598 (TC)
Bailii

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.526924

Rivers v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 May 2014

Income tax – Penalties under s 59C Taxes Management Act 1970 and Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 for late payment of income tax – underpayment of income tax caused by employer collecting and accounting for tax at basic rate – tax payable at the higher rate – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal disallowed

[2014] UKFTT 510 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.526873