Category: Income Tax

Revenue and Customs v Forde and McHugh Ltd: SC 26 Feb 2014

The Court heard a number of appeals concerned with the interpretation of the phrase in section 6(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, ‘[w]here in any tax week earnings are paid to or for the benefit of an earner’ It was asked as to the meaning of ‘earnings’ in that phrase The context is the payment of an employer’s contribution to a Funded Unapproved Retirement Benefits Scheme Until 2006 such schemes were commonly used to top up sums available through tax-approved pension schemes.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. The contributions made by it into a funded unapproved retirement benefits scheme in favour of one of its directors were not a part of the director’s ‘earnings’ for the purposes of section 6(1) of the 1992 Act and the company did not have to to pay national insurance contributions on the value of the contribution.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 14, [2014] STI 739, [2014] 1 WLR 810, [2014] WLR(D) 99, UKSC 2012/0162, [2014] Pens LR 203, [2014] 2 All ER 356, [2014] STC 724, [2014] ICR 403, [2014] BTC 8
WLRD, Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tennant v Smith (Surveyor of Taxes) HL 14-Mar-1892
A Montrose bank manager had been given free accommodation in a bank house which he was required to occupy.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not charge income tax on the value of the accommodation because the employee could not convert the . .
Cited – Abbott v Philbin (Inspector of Taxes) HL 21-Jun-1960
A company’s senior employees had been given an option to subscribe for its shares at the then current market price, the option being exercisable at any time within the next ten years. The employees were thus incentivised to increase the company’s . .
Cited – Heaton v Bell HL 1970
The Revenue sought to tax the benefit of a car loan scheme and the issue was whether the emoluments of a participating employee fell to be assessed under Schedule E gross without reference to the weekly sum deducted by the employer for providing, . .
Cited – Depositors’ Protection Board v Dalia HL 20-May-1994
The House was asked as to the meaning of the word ‘depositor’. Regulations were prayed in aid which were made four years after the date of the enactment.
Held: The protection given by the Depositor Protection Scheme does not extend to . .
Cited – Hanlon v The Law Society HL 1981
The House considered the impact of the statutory charge under the 1974 Act in matrimonial proceedings.
Held: The costs in respect of which the statutory charge bit were the costs of the whole divorce proceedings and not just the financial . .
At UTTC – Forde and McHugh v HM Reveue and Customs UTTC 21-Feb-2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – contribution to FURBS – whether liable for Class I contributions – no – appeal allowed. . .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v Forde and McHugh Ltd CA 30-May-2012
Sums paid by an employer, other than out of an employee’s salary, which were to provide contingent benefits to an employee, did not fall within the charge to NICs on earnings before the occurrence of the contingency and the payment of the benefits. . .

Cited by:
Cited – RFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland SC 5-Jul-2017
The Court was asked whether an employee’s remuneration is taxable as his or her emoluments or earnings when it is paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Benefits

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.521991

Wardle v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Oct 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Appellant incurred costs in claim for unfair dismissal in Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal and was ordered to pay Respondents costs in Court of Appeal – whether such costs were deductible expenses under s 336 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 – No – Appeal Dismissed

Brooks J
[2013] UKFTT 599 (TC)
Bailii
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 336
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.517748

Mariner v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Oct 2013

Taxpayer’s relience on professional adviser

FTTTx Income tax. Carlessness. Reasonable excuse. Reliance on a professional advisor. Wald v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 183 (TC) not followed. AB v HMRC [2007] STC (SCD) 99 followed and explained. No carelessness where taxpayer unaware of advisor’s carelessness/negligence – when advisor acts in a truly professional capacity and not as a mere functionary.

[2013] UKFTT 657 (TC), [2014] SFTD 504, [2014] WTLR 293, [2014] STI 588
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.518593

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Plummer: HL 1 Nov 1979

Although transactions were integrated as part of a preconceived scheme which was commercially marketed and that had no other conceivable purpose than that of saving surtax, the construction of the statute compelled the acceptance of a fiscal result which accorded very ill with the true ‘substance’ of the transactions taken as a whole. There was nothing illegal about the scheme and it was entitled to a fair, if not necessarily benevolent, consideration by the court. Purchased annuities are in principle captured by schedule D of the Income Tax Acts. Lord Wilberforce considered it was not possible to read into the definition an exception in favour of commercial transactions but that it was necessary to consider the scope of the words of the definition: ‘If it appears, on the one hand, that a completely literal reading of the relevant words would so widely extend the reach of the section that no agreement of whatever character fell outside it, but that, on the other hand, a legislative purpose may be discerned, of a more limited character, which Parliament can reasonably be supposed to have intended, and that the words used fairly admit of such a meaning as to give effect to that purpose, it would be legitimate, indeed necessary, for the courts to adopt such meaning.’ and ‘. . . it can, I think, fairly be seen that all of these provisions…have a common character. They are designed to bring within the net of taxation dispositions of various kinds, in favour of a settlor’s spouse, or children, or of charities, cases, in popular terminology, in which a taxpayer gives away a portion of his income, or of his assets, to such persons, or for such periods, or subject to such conditions, that Parliament considers it right to continue to treat such income, or income of the assets, as still the settlor’s income. These sections, in other words, though drafted in wide, and increasingly wider language, are nevertheless dealing with a limited field – one far narrower than the field of the totality of dispositions, or arrangements, or agreements, which a man may make in the course of his life. Is there then any common description which can be applied to this.’ As to Bulmer v IRC: ‘My Lords, I think that in doing so the learned judge was well within the limits of permissible interpretation, and that with the ‘element of bounty’ test we have a definition which is in agreement with the intention of Parliament as revealed through the whole miniature code . . .’
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said that the definition of settlement applied only where there was an element of bounty because the word ‘settlement’, even allowing for its extended definition was used throughout the relevant Part ‘with a flavour of donation or bounty’.

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
[1979] 3 All ER 775, [1980] AC 896, [1979] UKHL TC – 54 – 1, [1979] STC 793, [1979] TR 339, [1979] 3 WLR 689, 54 TC 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bulmer v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1967
Shareholders fearing a takeover sold their shares to another company’s subsidiary at below market value, the balance of value outstanding on an interest free loan. A commercial loan was used to buy further shares. When the loan was fully repaid the . .

Cited by:
Applied – W 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 . .
Cited – Commissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian HL 21-May-1997
Steps which had been inserted into a commercial transaction, but which had no purpose other than the saving of tax are to be disregarded when assessing the tax effect of the scheme. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to . .
Cited – Jones 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 . .
Cited – Chinn v Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) HL 11-Dec-1980
The House considered the meaning of the word ‘bounty’ in an income tax context, where it had been used by the courts: ‘My Lords, I would venture to point out that the word ‘bounty’ appears nowhere in the statute. It is a judicial gloss upon the . .
Cited – Jones 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 . .
Cited – Barlow Clowes International Ltd and Others v Henwood CA 23-May-2008
The receiver appealed against an order finding that the debtor petitioner was not domiciled here when the order was made. The debtor had a domicile of origin in England, but later acquired on in the Isle of Man. He then acquired a home in Mauritius . .
Criticised – Plummer v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 1987
The taxpayer had a domicile of origin in England but her family had moved to Guernsey. She remained in England principally for the purpose of completing her education. She intended when she had finished her training and had some experience working . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.181332

Zoki UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Feb 2014

FTTTx Paye and CT – late lodging of employer’s annual return and ct return- bookkeeper off sick – lack of funds due to downturn in business due to recession – lack of action by appellants – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Baird J
[2014] UKFTT 189 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.521813

Agnew v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2010

FTTTx Income tax – Appellant claimed relief against other income for losses incurred in a trade of manicure, pedicure and make up largely carried on by his wife – whether Appellant was carrying on a trade – no – whether any such trade would have been ‘carried on on a commercial basis’ (s 384 ICTA) or ‘commercial’ (s 66 ITA) – no – whether HMRC barred from raising a discovery assessment (s 29 TMA) in view of the information already supplied to Inland Revenue about the conduct of the trade in an earlier enquiry – in relation to 2003-04 yes, otherwise no – appeal allowed in part.

Poole TJ
[2010] UKFTT 272 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.422255

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 manufacture, but the Revenue said that no part of the company’s trade was itself in storage.
Held: There is a clear and important distinction between a trade and an activity undertaken in the course of a trade. The appeal succeeded, and the first instance judgment restored. The allowance was not available to the company. The warehouse was not an industrial building within the Act. (Lords Mance and Scott dissenting)

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 54, Times 02-Sep-2008
Bailii, HL
Capital Allowances Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
At SCIT – Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 25-Oct-2005
SCIT CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – industrial buildings allowances – building used to house goods manufactured by the Appellant’s Austrian parent company for sale to wholesalers in the UK to be used in manufacture – . .
At Divisional Court – Revenue and Customs v Maco Door and Window Hardware (Uk) Ltd ChD 19-Jul-2006
The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The . .
Appeal from – Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 19-Jun-2007
Correct classification, for the purposes of capital allowances, of expenditure on a building provided for the business of the appellant. . .
Cited – Kilmarnock Equitable Co-operative Society Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCS 16-Feb-1966
Income Tax, Schedule D – Profits Tax – Capital allowances – Industrial building or structure – Building for screening and packing coal – Whether coal subjected to a process – Whether building used for purpose ancillary to a retail shop – Income Tax . .
Cited – Bestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 4-Mar-1998
The taxpayer company operated a wholesale cash and carry business from a number of self-service supermarkets. The stores sold groceries, household goods, tobacco, confectionery and various kinds of alcohol. Although the buildings were not open to . .
Cited – Saxone Lilley and Skinner (Holdings) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue HL 1967
The taxpayer company was the parent company of a group of subsidiaries, one of which traded as the manufacturer and retailer of shoes. The others either manufactured or sold shoes. The company built a warehouse which was let to a warehousing . .
Cited – Watson Brothers v Hornby 1942
. .
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 . .
Dicta Approved – Graham v Green 1925
Rowlatt J held: ‘a conception of a trade . . differs in its nature, in my judgment, from the individual acts which go to build it up, just as a bundle differs from odd sticks. You may say, I think, without an abuse of language, that there is . .
Cited – Vibroplant Ltd v Holland (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 1980
The use of the buildings for servicing and repairing the plant which Vibroplant wished to hire out, was an essential part of Vibroplant’s business of plant hire operators and part of their trade. Although not required to decide the point, the court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.271279

Wood v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2015

FTTTx Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Human Rights – INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – discovery assessments – extended time limits – ss 29 and 36 TMA 1970 – death of taxpayer – whether art 6 Human Rights Convention engaged – whether contrary to overriding objective in Tribunal Procedure Rule 2 to allow proceedings to continue

[2015] UKFTT 282 (TC)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Taxes Management Act 1970 29 36
England and Wales

Income Tax, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.549556

Bingham v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Feb 2013

FTTtx INCOME TAX – whether interest earned on joint account in names of taxpayer and family members all properly to be assessed on taxpayer alone as the provider of the funds -yes; resulting trust; settlements legislation; s.29 TMA 1970 – out of time assessments set aside; penalties inappropriate- no negligence.

Hacking TJ
[2013] UKFTT 110 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 29
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Trusts, Income Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.472332

Johnstone v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Jan 2011

FTTTx INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX – Taxes Management Act 1970 s.12B(1) – whether requisite records kept – transfer of profit on construction contract from sole trader’s accounts to company partially owned by sole trader – loss of tax. Appeal dismissed.

W Ruthven Gemmell, WS
[2011] UKFTT 57 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 12B(1)
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.442811

Swain and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Aug 2014

FTTTx Income Tax – Corporation Tax on capital gains – Whether a claim to add 60,000 pounds as enhancement expenditure to the deductible costs of some let real properties was valid, so occasioning a loss rather than a gain on a part disposal of the properties – Whether there was private use of two company cars available to and utilised by one or both of the directors of the company – whether the capital gains return was fraudulent, and the absence of any disclosures in relation to the asserted car benefits were at the very least negligent – whether penalties were justified and whether they should be adjusted – Appeals substantially disallowed, but allowed in respect of one car

[2014] UKFTT 778 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.535984

HM Revenue and Customs v Trustees of the Peter Clay Discretionary Trust: CA 19 Dec 2008

The court was asked whether the Commissioners had been correct to disallow in a closure notice, the attribution in part to income in the year 2000-01 of expenses incurred by the trustees of a United Kingdom resident discretionary trust. The expenses claimed were (i) trustees’ fees, (ii) investment management fees, (iii) bank charges, (iv) custodian fees and (v) professional fees for accountancy and administration.
Held: It had not been open to the Special Commissioners to approach their task on the basis that: ‘in the light of the general principle of fairness ‘expenses incurred for the benefit of the whole estate’ should not be understood widely as meaning anything that is for the benefit of both the income and capital beneficiaries should be charged to capital and should not be attributed.’ The appeal was allowed to a limited extent, but ‘the onus of showing that some of the fees of the non-executive trustees related to advice for the exclusive benefit of income beneficiaries rests on the trustees.’

Arden LJ, Lloyd LJ, Sir John Chadwick
[2008] EWCA Civ 1441, Times 02-Jan-2009, [2009] WTLR 247, [2009] 2 All ER 683, [2009] STC 469, (2008-09) 11 ITELR 672, [2009] STI 79, [2009] 2 WLR 1353, [2009] Ch 296, [2009] BTC 50
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 56A, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 686
England and Wales
Citing:
At SCIT – Peter Clay Discretionary Trust v Revenue and Customs SCIT 27-Feb-2007
SCIT DISCRETIONARY TRUST – whether single fee for expenses of management that relate partly to income and partly to capital can be attributed partly to each for s 686(2AA) Taxes Act 1988 – yes – attribution . .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v The Trustees of the Peter Clay Discretionary Trust ChD 15-Nov-2007
. .
Cited – In re Bennett, Jones v Bennett CA 1896
The deceased’s estate held mainly an unsecured interest-bearing loan to a firm of which he had been a partner. On his retirement the loan was repayable on demand if conditions for the continued solvency of the firm were not met. The court was asked . .
Cited – Carver v Duncan HL 1985
The court considered whether expenses, premiums paid in respect of life assurance policies, and the fees of professional investment managers, were properly to be set against the capital or income of a trust.
Held: Lord Templeman said: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Trusts

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.278979

Sian Williams v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2010

FTTTx INCOME TAX – EMPLOYMENT INCOME – EXPENSES – television newsreader – expenses for purchase and laundering of professional clothing for studio and for professional hairdo and colouring – whether incurred ‘wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment’ (ITEPA s.336(1)) – no – expenses for purchase of professional clothing for studio – whether ‘plant or machinery . . necessarily provided for use in the performance of the duties of the employment or office’ (CAA s.36(1)) – no – Appeal dismissed.

[2010] UKFTT 86 (TC)
Bailii
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 336
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Yarmouth v France CA 11-Aug-1887
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him.
Held: For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.408942

McCullough (HMIT) v Ahluwalia: CA 23 Jun 2004

The taxpayer appealed an order for payment of arrears of schedule D tax and national insurance contributions in enforcement proceedings in the County Court.
Held: The proper forum for appealing against determinations was the general commissioners whose jurisdiction was exclusive. The County Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Waller LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 889, Times 09-Aug-2004
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 56
England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.199589

Hayward v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Jul 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – payment in consequence of the termination of contract of employment – whether within Ch.3, Pt. 6, ITEPA and subject to exemption from tax for the first andpound;30,000 under s.403 ITEPA, or ‘earnings’ within s. 62, ITEPA – contractual provision in the contract of employment for payment in lieu of notice – whether payment made pursuant to that provision or alternatively as compensation for loss of the employment – held the source of the payment was the contractual provision in the contract of employment for payment for service under notice or in lieu of notice and the payment was therefore ‘earnings’ within s.62 ITEPA – appeal dismissed

John Walters QC
[2012] UKFTT 431 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.462829

Ingenious Games Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Aug 2016

Losses for film production schemes

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Losses – Income Tax – LLPs engaging in the making of films and video games – whether trading; whether trading with a view to profit; what amount was incurred on the acquisition of rights in respect of films and games, and what amount was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of any trade; whether profits had been computed in accordance with GAAP.

[2016] UKFTT 521 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Media

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.567981

Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 24 Nov 1966

The taxpayer made a gift of shares to a trust set up to fund a medical professorship. The shares were in a private company, and an option was given for their repurchase once a certain level of dividends had been attributed to them. He was assessed to substantial surcharges on them on the basis that the arrangement was a settlement under which he retained an interest and of which he had not divested himself absolutely.
Lord Upjohn said: ‘If A intends to give away all his beneficial interest in a piece of property and thinks he has done so but, by some mistake or accident or failure to comply with the requirements of the law, he has failed to do so, either wholly or partially, there will, by operation of law, be a resulting trust for him of the beneficial interest of which he had failed effectually to dispose. If the beneficial interest was in A and he fails to give it away effectively to another or others or on charitable trusts it must remain in him’

Lord Reid, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan, Lord Wilberforce
[1966] UKHL 3, [1967] 2 AC 291, [1966] UKHL TC – 43 – 519
Bailii, Bailii
Income Tax Act 1952 411 415, Law of Property Act 1925 53
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Oughtred v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 4-Nov-1959
The taxpayer and her son owned through a trust the entire beneficial interest in the shares of a company. She agreed to transfer other shares to him in return for his interest in the shares subject to the trust, releasing the trust. The Revenue . .
Cited – Grey and Another (Hunter’s Nominees) v Inland Revenue Commissioners; Orse Gray v IRC HL 2-Nov-1959
The House considered whether certain instruments which were presented for adjudication to stamp duty under section 13 of the Stamp Act 1891, are or are not chargeable with ad valorem duty.
Held: The word ‘disposition’ is to be given its . .
Cited – Attorney General v Brown 1849
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 2) ChD 17-Jul-1973
The court considered the requirement that a proposed beneficiary must establish some positive act on the part of the person creating the trust for that person to be bound by the trust asserted. Megarry J said: ‘(1) If a transaction fails to make any . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.248562

Davis v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2011

Income tax – penalty assessment – Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 – whether error on tax return was careless – whether Tribunal should reduce the penalty under paragraph 17(3)(b) of Schedule 24 – appeal allowed in part

[2011] UKFTT 391 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.443098

Hoskins v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Apr 2012

Construction Industry Scheme – Appellant paid sub-contractor gross -appellant liable for amount that ought to have been deducted – appeal against HMRC’s refusal to make direction relieving appellant under Regulation 9 of the Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 (‘CIS Regulations’) because HMRC not satisfied sub-contractor had paid tax – whether Tribunal had jurisdiction on this point – no – whether HMRC wrong to refuse relief under Regulation 9(3) of CIS Regulations (reasonable care to comply, error made in good faith, genuine belief deduction obligation did not apply) – no – appeal dismissed

[2012] UKFTT 284 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.462684

Goldman v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Apr 2012

INCOME TAX – payment in consequence of the termination of contract of employment – whether within Ch.3, Pt. 6, ITEPA and subject to exemption from tax for the first pounds 30,000 under s.403 ITEPA, or ‘earnings’ within s. 62, ITEPA – contractual provision in the contract of employment for payment in lieu of notice – whether payment made pursuant to that provision or alternatively for settling disputes arising in relation to its application – held the source of the payment was the contractual provision in the contract of employment for payment in lieu of notice and the payment was therefore ‘earnings’ within s.62 ITEPA – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 313 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.462677

John Mander Pension Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs – FTC/88/2011: UTTC 28 Jan 2013

UTTC Income tax – charge on retirement benefits scheme administrator under s591C ICTA 88 on cessation of approval of scheme – whether assessments raised in respect of correct year of assessment – whether raised in the name of correct person.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal failed. HMRC had correctly applied the assessment to the year in which the income arose, and not to the year in which the scheme ceased to be approved.
Vos J
[2013] UKUT 51 (TCC), FTC/88/2011
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 591C
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – John Mander Pension Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 28-Oct-2011
FTTTx Income tax – charge on retirement benefits scheme administrator under s591C ICTA 88 on cessation of approval of scheme – whether notice validly given – whether assessments valid – whether raised in respect . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – John Mander Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 19-Dec-2013
The court was asked whether the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have assessed the appellant for tax in the wrong tax year. The scheme had ceased to be approved, and HMRC issued assessments for the earlier years in which the . .
At UTTC – John Mander Pension Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jul-2015
The pension scheme had been approved, but that approval later withdraw. HMRC issued assessment for the years in which it had been approved. The taxpayer argued that such assessments applied to the date with effect from which the approval is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.509167

Gilbertson v Fergusson: CA 1881

(1881) 7 QBD 562
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .
Limited – Barnes v Hely Hutchinson HL 1940
UK taxes had not been paid by the overseas company paying a dividend, but had been by the UK companies in which it held shares. The dividends received by the taxpayer were preference dividends rather than ordinary dividends, and were therefore paid . .
Overruled – Canadian Eagle Oil Co Ltd v The King 1946
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573168

Strathalmond v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1972

The taxpayer’s wife was an American citizen resident for tax purposes in the United Kingdom. Because of her American citizenship, however, she was not resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Double Taxation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. Her husband was assessed to tax on her American dividends. The assessments were discharged on the ground that the dividends were exempted from United Kingdom tax by the Double Taxation Agreement.
[1972] 1 WLR 1511
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573171

Padmore v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1987

[1987] STC 36
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573172

Colquhoun v Brooks: 1889

A partner’s share of the profits of a foreign partnership, are to be treated as income from a foreign possession
(1889) 14 App Cas 493
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573165

Canadian Eagle Oil Co Ltd v The King: 1946

[1946] AC 119
England and Wales
Citing:
Overruled – Gilbertson v Fergusson CA 1881
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573170

Barnes v Hely Hutchinson: HL 1940

UK taxes had not been paid by the overseas company paying a dividend, but had been by the UK companies in which it held shares. The dividends received by the taxpayer were preference dividends rather than ordinary dividends, and were therefore paid at a fixed rate, undiminished by the taxes paid by the UK companies.
Held: The taxpayer had been correctly assessed on the full amount of the dividend.
Notwithstanding the concept of ‘franked’ dividend income, the income received by the shareholder was not the same income as that of the company.
Lord Wright explained: ‘The English company is taxed on the balance of its profits or gains, that is on its income; the shareholder is taxed on his own income. The shareholder is never taxed on the company’s fund of profits, but only on the dividend which comes to him in payment of the debt which is created when the company declares the dividend. The tax is in every case on the individual’s income, not on a fund possessed by another person, the company, even though it is the fund of profits of that company, from which the individual’s income or part of it will be paid. … This principle must not be obscured by reason of the circumstance that in the way already noted, the dividend is treated as franked by the tax paid by the company. The fund which is taxed in the hands of the company and the dividend which is declared by the company in favour of the shareholder are separate items for taxation law. It is only the latter which is the shareholder’s income.’
Lord Wright
[1940] AC 81
England and Wales
Citing:
Limited – Gilbertson v Fergusson CA 1881
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573169

Purchase (H M Inspector of Taxes) v Stainer’s Executorsz: HL 29 Nov 1951

HL Income Tax, Schedule D – Film actor and producer-Remuneration including right of participation in profits of, or receipts from, particular films-Sums in respect of such participations paid to executors – Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Schedule D, Cases III and VI.
After the actor and film producer, Leslie Howard had been killed by enemy action in 1943, his executors received income from films, which he had produced or in which he had acted. The Crown argued that the sums had assumed a different character after his death and could no longer be treated as profits and gains of his profession.
Held: The source of the payments was Mr Howard’s professional activity.
Lord Simonds stated that ‘they retained the essential quality of being the fruit of his professional activity’
Lord Asquith of Bishopstone described the payments as ‘the fruit or aftermath of the professional activities of Mr Leslie Howard during his lifetime’.
Lord Asquith, Lord Simonds
[1951] UKHL TC – 32 – 367, [1952] AC 280
Bailii
Income Tax Act 1918
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .
Cited – Shop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs SC 17-Feb-2016
The Court considered the interpretation of the sections which applied corporation tax to post-cessation receipts. Companies had received from the Inland Revenue substantial repayments of VAT together with interest. There had been reorganisations of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.560165

Duckering (Inspector of Taxes) v Gollan: HL 8 Apr 1965

HL Income Tax, Schedule D – Double taxation relief – Tax credit – Whether tax paid – in respect of – income of year of assessment or basis year – Income Tax Act, 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. VI and 1 Eliz. II, c. 10), Section 347; Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (New Zealand) Order, 1947 (S.R. and O. 1947 No. 1776), Schedule, Article XIV (1).
[1965] UKHL TC – 42 – 333, 42 TC 333, [1965] 1 WLR 680, [1965] 2 All ER 115
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.559793

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Lucas: HL 28 Jun 1883

Income Tax – Profits. Corporation. A harbour board is empowered by Act of Parliament to levy dock dues, Sfc., to be applied in maintaining the concern, and in paying interest on moneys borrowed; any surplus income remaining after meeting these charges is directed to be applied in forming a sinking fund to extinguish the debt incurred in the construction of the docks. Held, that the surplus is profit assessable to the income tax.
[1883] UKHL TC – 2 – 25
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.636763

Fitzpatrick and Co Solicitors v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Apr 2012

Income Tax – penalty for late filing of partnership return – return filed as PDF with partners’ returns – whether PDF filed as attachment was an ‘electronic return’ as prescribed under ss12AA(5E) TMA – whether return delivered before the day specified by notice in the return form – appeal allowed.
[2012] UKFTT 238 (TC), [2012] SFTD 816, [2012] STI 2188
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 October 2021; Ref: scu.462668

Amini v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Penalties): FTTTx 13 Aug 2021

Income Tax – Penalties – Tax carelessly understated in self-assessment tax returns – Whether assessments/amendments excessive – Whether evidence to rebut presumption of continuity – Whether cooperation by taxpayer merits further reduction in penalties – Appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 289 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 October 2021; Ref: scu.667915

Revenue and Customs v Anson: CA 12 Feb 2013

The revenue sought to levy income tax on the taxpayers share of revenue in a Delaware Limited liability company. In the US the company would itself be liable for and pay all tax on the members’ profits. Mr Anson was resident but not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes and he was liable to pay UK tax only on income remitted to the UK which included some of these profits.
‘the relevant test for determining whether a person is taxed on the same profits or income in both jurisdictions is whether the source of the profits or income in each jurisdiction is the same’
Laws, Arden, Lloyd LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 63, 15 ITL Rep 528, [2013] STC 557, [2013] BTC 81, [2013] STI 383
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At UTTC (1) – HMRC v George Anson UTTC 3-Aug-2011
UTTC Income tax – double taxation – United Kingdom and United States – whether computation by reference to the same income or profits – whether taxpayer entitled to profits as they arise . .
At UTTC (2) – HMRC v Anson UTTC 16-Feb-2012
UTTC Income tax – whether taxpayer can invoke section 739 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as against HMRC – effect of sections 739-741 – can costs be awarded in the Upper Tribunal on an appeal from . .
At FTTTx – Swift v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Feb-2010
FTTTx DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF – individual investor in Delaware LLC – whether entitled to the profits as they arise – yes – accordingly the Appellant is entitled to credit for US tax paid by him, the LLC being . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.470900

HMRC v George Anson: UTTC 3 Aug 2011

UTTC Income tax – double taxation – United Kingdom and United States – whether computation by reference to the same income or profits – whether taxpayer entitled to profits as they arise
[2011] UKUT B21 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – Swift v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Feb-2010
FTTTx DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF – individual investor in Delaware LLC – whether entitled to the profits as they arise – yes – accordingly the Appellant is entitled to credit for US tax paid by him, the LLC being . .

Cited by:
See Also – HMRC v Anson UTTC 16-Feb-2012
UTTC Income tax – whether taxpayer can invoke section 739 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as against HMRC – effect of sections 739-741 – can costs be awarded in the Upper Tribunal on an appeal from . .
At UTTC (1) – Revenue and Customs v Anson CA 12-Feb-2013
The revenue sought to levy income tax on the taxpayers share of revenue in a Delaware Limited liability company. In the US the company would itself be liable for and pay all tax on the members’ profits. Mr Anson was resident but not domiciled in the . .
At UTTC (1) – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.448057

HMRC v Anson: UTTC 16 Feb 2012

UTTC Income tax – whether taxpayer can invoke section 739 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as against HMRC – effect of sections 739-741 – can costs be awarded in the Upper Tribunal on an appeal from the First-Tier Tribunal.
Mann J
[2012] UKUT 59 (TCC), 14 ITL Rep 131, [2011] STI 2558, [2011] STC 2126, [2011] BTC 1841
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – HMRC v George Anson UTTC 3-Aug-2011
UTTC Income tax – double taxation – United Kingdom and United States – whether computation by reference to the same income or profits – whether taxpayer entitled to profits as they arise . .
At FTTTx – Swift v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Feb-2010
FTTTx DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF – individual investor in Delaware LLC – whether entitled to the profits as they arise – yes – accordingly the Appellant is entitled to credit for US tax paid by him, the LLC being . .

Cited by:
At UTTC (2) – Revenue and Customs v Anson CA 12-Feb-2013
The revenue sought to levy income tax on the taxpayers share of revenue in a Delaware Limited liability company. In the US the company would itself be liable for and pay all tax on the members’ profits. Mr Anson was resident but not domiciled in the . .
At UTTC (2) – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.452890

Hill v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Aug 2020

High Income Child Benefit Charge – Taxpayer With Liability Did Not Complete Tax Return – Discovery assessments under s29(1)(a) TMA 1970 – ‘income’ assessable to income tax? – purposive construction applied to statute – reasonable excuse found exonerating taxpayer’s delay – appeal against penalties allowed
[2020] UKFTT 316 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.653157

Gedir v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 15 Mar 2016

INCOME TAX – termination payment -availability of Foreign Service Deduction-events arising from 2008 financial crisis-whether new employer ‘successor’ to previous employer-penalty for careless inaccuracy-professional advice taken-whether taxpayer should have done more-whether took reasonable care-penalties for late payment-payments on account
[2016] UKFTT 188 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.561898

Marlborough Dp Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Whether Under The Income Tax (Pensions and Earnings) Act 2003 Amounts Are Taxable): FTTTx 1 Sep 2021

INCOME TAX – whether under the Income Tax (Pensions and Earnings) Act 2003 amounts paid under trust arrangements are taxable as earnings from employment -‘-‘ or under Part 7 A of that Act – no – whether the Appellant can obtain a tax deduction for contributions to the trust in computing its profits for corporation tax purposes if the amounts are taxable under that Act – yes – appeal allowed
[2021] UKFTT 304 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.667934

M v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Apr 2018

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment – INCOME TAX – Self-Assessment returns – enquiry into 2015-16 and prior years from 2011-12 to 2014-15 – applications for closure notices – s 28A Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether enquiry being related to a company relevant – whether tribunal has jurisdiction to consider complaints against the conduct of HMRC officers – whether new evidence admissible at the stage of closing submissions – whether reasonable grounds for not issuing closure notices; yes – quality of information provided – taxpayer’s co-operation and extent of disclosure – risks identified in taxpayer’s income and capital profile – third-party information notices approved by the Tribunal – whether period for the issue of notices can be specified; no – applications refused
[2018] UKFTT 228 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 28A
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.609281

David Cation v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 4 Sep 2021

INCOME TAX and PENALTIES – self-assessment return – enquiry and closure notice – s 34 of ITTOIA 2005 – deductibility of payments to father – lack of business records as required by s 12B TMA – taxpayer’s object in incurring expenditure – whether ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of trade – Schedule 41 FA 2008 and Schedule 24 FA 2007 – failure to notify liability and inaccuracy – interaction of penalties – whether deliberate – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 311 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.667929

Mclaren v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 30 Apr 2021

INCOME TAX – discovery assessments – ss 29, 34, 36 and 118 of Taxes Management Act 1970 – no returns filed for relevant years – information from police raid – interaction with reg 72 Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 – whether discovery of insufficiency ‘stale’ – obiter dictum of Charlton re-considered – ‘danger’ of judicial paraphrase per Lansdowne – the concept of ‘staleness’ unsupported by statutory context, and unsupportable in the absence of judicial review jurisdiction – extended time limits – whether loss of tax brought about carelessly or deliberately – issue of quantification – whether assessments raised on proceeds of crime – frauds being ‘incidents’ of a trade – elements of illegality cannot be founded upon to avoid tax – whether assessments stand good; yes – appeal allowed in part A but only in relation to assessments not defended by the respondents; appeal otherwise dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 130 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.667900

Revenue and Customs v Premiere Picture Ltd (Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax – Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes): FTTTx 9 Mar 2021

INCOME TAX, CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND CORPORATION TAX – disclosure of tax avoidance schemes – applications for orders that arrangements arising pursuant to the implementation of two schemes involving the acquisition and disposal of film rights were, or should be treated as, notifiable under either Section 314A or Section 306A of the Finance Act 2004 – held that each set of arrangements was notifiable because it fell within the description in either paragraph 10 or paragraph 12 of the Arrangements Regulations and gave rise to tax advantages for the participants which were the main benefit that might be expected to arise from it – orders to that effect made under Section 314A of the Finance Act 2004
[2021] UKFTT 58 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.661789

Gelder Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Construction Industry Scheme): FTTTx 18 Aug 2021

INCOME TAX – Construction Industry Scheme – Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 – refusal decision to grant relief under regulation 9(3) – s 61(1) FA 2004 – materials cost excluded for CIS withholding tax – distinction between plant hired-in and plant owned by subcontractors – Condition A relief criteria – whether ‘reasonable care’ taken – whether admission of ‘errors in good faith’ – whether ‘genuine belief’ held – appeal allowed
[2021] UKFTT 294 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.667912

Hargreaves and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Whether Issued To Person Whose Tax Position Was Being Checked): FTTTx 22 Mar 2021

Information notices issued under paragraph 1 of Schedule 36 to Finance Act 2008 – whether issued to person whose tax position was being checked – whether information reasonably required to check the recipient’s tax position – appeals allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 80 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.663657

Sherrington and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Loss Relief): FTTTx 9 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX – loss relief – whether appellants carrying on a trade – no – whether any trade carried on on a commercial basis with a view to profit – no – whether loss calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice – no – appeals dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 128 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.649215

Mullens v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Whether Certain Large Payments Made To The Appellant Were Taxable As Income): FTTTx 4 May 2021

With one exception (the Holiday Payment) yes, were taxable as income DISCOVERY ASSESSMENTS- Whether discoveries were made to justify the bringing of assessments? – Yes, including under the extended time limit for fraud VALUE ADDED TAX (treated as CUSTOMS DUTY) – Whether a Post Clearance Demand form C18 issued in relation to diamonds brought into the UK from Switzerland was issued within a reasonable time, even if not within three years of the importation? – Yes CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Whether jewellery belonged to the Appellant or to his wife for taxation purposes? – To the Appellant – Whether Appellant entitled to claim CGT losses when that jewellery was stolen? – Yes PENALTIES – Payments not declared on income tax returns – TMA 1970 section 95 – Whether conduct fraudulent, or negligent? Fraudulent; FA 2007 Schedule 24 – Whether conduct deliberate, or careless? With the exception of one payment, deliberate
[2021] UKFTT 131 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.663729

Fowler v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 15 Nov 2018

Whether offshore diver was employee or self employed.
Lewison, Henderson, Baker LJJ
[2018] EWCA Civ 2544, [2019] 1 All ER 717, [2018] STI 2350, [2018] STC 2401, 21 ITL Rep 388
Bailii
Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002, Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 15
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – Fowler v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Double Taxation) FTTTx 12-Apr-2016
INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – section 15 ITTOIA 2005 – performance of duties of employed diver in UK waters treated as the carrying on of a trade in the UK – appellant resident in South Africa – whether income taxable as employment income under . .
Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Fowler (Income Tax) UTTC 30-May-2017
INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – section 15 ITTOIA 2005 – performance of duties of employed diver in UK waters treated as the carrying on of a trade in the UK – respondent resident in South Africa – whether income taxable as employment income under . .

Cited by:
Appeal from CA – Fowler v Revenue and Customs SC 20-May-2020
The taxpayer, a diver resident in South Africa had undertaken engagements within UK waters and now disputed his liability to Income Tax using a deeming provision in section 5 of the 2005 Act being self employed.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.630706

Wigmore v Thomas Summerson and Sons Ltd: 1926

The Revenue was unable to charge to income tax a holder of gilts who, by a well-timed sale just before payment of a half-yearly instalment of interest, in effect turned his accrued income into a capital gain. Rowlatt J said that: ‘The result is that nobody on the super tax level, who has not more money than appreciation of income tax law, will ever buy a security that is full of dividend, because in doing so he is buying super tax; and that a man on the super tax level, if he wants to sell a security, had better sell when it is full of dividend, because then he is selling super tax.’
Rowlatt J
[1926] 1 KB 131
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.428302

Schaffer v Cattermole: 1980

A purchaser of short-dated gilts pregnant with interest would not be to escape liability to tax on the whole of the interest payment, even if he had paid an extra sum expressed to be for the accrued interest.
[1980] STC 650
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.428303

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Metrolands (Property Finance) Ltd: 1981

Nourse J said: ‘When considering the extent to which a deeming provision should be applied, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to. It will not always be clear what those purposes are. If the application of the provision would lead to an unjust, anomalous or absurd result then, unless its application would clearly be within the purposes of the fiction, it should not be applied. If, on the other hand, its application would not lead to any such result then, unless that would clearly be outside the purposes of the fiction, it should be applied.’
Nourse J
[1981] 1 WLR 637
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .
Cited – Fowler v Revenue and Customs SC 20-May-2020
The taxpayer, a diver resident in South Africa had undertaken engagements within UK waters and now disputed his liability to Income Tax using a deeming provision in section 5 of the 2005 Act being self employed.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.428304

Revenue and Customs v Fowler (Income Tax): UTTC 30 May 2017

INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – section 15 ITTOIA 2005 – performance of duties of employed diver in UK waters treated as the carrying on of a trade in the UK – respondent resident in South Africa – whether income taxable as employment income under Article 14 or as business profits under Article 7 of the South Africa/UK Double Tax Treaty 2002 – interpretation of the Double Tax Treaty in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – application of Article 3(2) of the Double Tax Treaty
[2017] UKUT 219 (TCC), [2017] BTC 518, [2017] STC 1385
Bailii
Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002, Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 15
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Fowler v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Double Taxation) FTTTx 12-Apr-2016
INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – section 15 ITTOIA 2005 – performance of duties of employed diver in UK waters treated as the carrying on of a trade in the UK – appellant resident in South Africa – whether income taxable as employment income under . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Fowler v HM Revenue and Customs CA 15-Nov-2018
Whether offshore diver was employee or self employed. . .
At UTTC – Fowler v Revenue and Customs SC 20-May-2020
The taxpayer, a diver resident in South Africa had undertaken engagements within UK waters and now disputed his liability to Income Tax using a deeming provision in section 5 of the 2005 Act being self employed.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.584686

Fowler v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Double Taxation): FTTTx 12 Apr 2016

INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – section 15 ITTOIA 2005 – performance of duties of employed diver in UK waters treated as the carrying on of a trade in the UK – appellant resident in South Africa – whether income taxable as employment income under Article 14 or business profits under Article 7 South Africa/UK Double Tax Treaty 2002 – interpretation of Double Tax Treaty in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – application of Article 3 (2) South Africa/UK Double Tax Treaty
[2016] UKFTT 234 (TC), [2016] STI 1718, 18 ITL Rep 644, [2016] SFTD 535
Bailii
Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002, Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 15
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Fowler (Income Tax) UTTC 30-May-2017
INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – section 15 ITTOIA 2005 – performance of duties of employed diver in UK waters treated as the carrying on of a trade in the UK – respondent resident in South Africa – whether income taxable as employment income under . .
At FTTTx – Fowler v HM Revenue and Customs CA 15-Nov-2018
Whether offshore diver was employee or self employed. . .
At FTTTx – Fowler v Revenue and Customs SC 20-May-2020
The taxpayer, a diver resident in South Africa had undertaken engagements within UK waters and now disputed his liability to Income Tax using a deeming provision in section 5 of the 2005 Act being self employed.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.562853

Training Consultant v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 15 Jan 2007

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF – whether the operation in Slovakia carried on as a registered branch of X International Limited was akin to a partnership with the Appellant, or whether X International Limited were carrying on business alone but contractually bound to pay the Appellant a share of profits – the latter – no relief available
[2007] UKSPC SPC00584
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.249650

Fowler v Revenue and Customs: SC 20 May 2020

The taxpayer, a diver resident in South Africa had undertaken engagements within UK waters and now disputed his liability to Income Tax using a deeming provision in section 5 of the 2005 Act being self employed.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded. Assuming the parties factual assumptions were correct he was to be treated as an employee subject to UK Income Tax.
Section 15 used the terms ‘income’ ’employment’ and ‘trade’ in their ordinary meaning. It taxes the income of an employed diver in a particular manner which includes the fiction that the diver is carrying on a trade. That fiction is not created for the purpose of rendering a qualifying diver immune from tax in the UK, or for adjudicating between the UK and South Africa as potential recipients of tax, but to adjust the basis of a continuing UK income tax liability.
Lord Hodge (Deputy President), Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Hamblen
[2020] UKSC 22, [2020] 1 WLR 2227, UKSC 2018/0226
Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts, SC 2020 Mar 24 am Video, SC 2020 Mar 24 pm Video, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video
Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 15, Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 31
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – Fowler v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Double Taxation) FTTTx 12-Apr-2016
INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – section 15 ITTOIA 2005 – performance of duties of employed diver in UK waters treated as the carrying on of a trade in the UK – appellant resident in South Africa – whether income taxable as employment income under . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v Fowler (Income Tax) UTTC 30-May-2017
INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – section 15 ITTOIA 2005 – performance of duties of employed diver in UK waters treated as the carrying on of a trade in the UK – respondent resident in South Africa – whether income taxable as employment income under . .
Appeal from CA – Fowler v HM Revenue and Customs CA 15-Nov-2018
Whether offshore diver was employee or self employed. . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Commerzbank AG ChD 1990
Mummery J set out the correct approach to interpretation of double taxation agreements as laid down in Fothergill. He said ‘(1) It is necessary to look first for a clear meaning of the words used in the relevant article of the convention, bearing in . .
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .
At ChD – Smallwood v Revenue and Customs ChD 8-Apr-2009
The taxpayer had settled company shares for the benefit of himself and his family. He appealed from an amendment to his tax returns creating a CGT liability of 6 million pounds.
Held: The appeal was successful. . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Metrolands (Property Finance) Ltd 1981
Nourse J said: ‘When considering the extent to which a deeming provision should be applied, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to. It will not always be . .
Cited – Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr HL 30-Jun-1994
A settlor by will was deemed to have had an interest as funds were passed to a Jersey Trust. The section merely made or allowed that a variation of a will would not be a taxable event in UK law. It had no other effects. A deed of family arrangement . .
Cited – East End Dwellings Co Ltd v Finsbury Borough Council HL 1952
The House was asked whether a hypothetically rebuilt block of flats would have been subject to the Rent Restriction Acts.
Held: A court should not shrink from applying the fiction created by the deeming provision to the consequences which . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Smallwood and Another CA 8-Jul-2010
The taxpayers had set up trusts which they said were based in Mauritius allowing them to claim double taxation relief. The Revenue had issued closure notices, confirmed by the SPCT, but overturned by the High Court. The Revenue appealed, saying that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.650857

Smallman and Sons Ltd, Garrety and Garrity v Revenue and Customs (Benefit In Kind – Cars Acquired By Employer On Lease Purchase and Made Available To Employees): FTTTx 24 Aug 2021

Benefit in kind – cars acquired by employer on lease purchase and made available to employees – full costs recharged to the directors – whether class 1A NICs and income tax under Chapter 6 Part 3 ITEPA 2003 due – whether a ‘benefit’ arose up to 2015-16 – Apollo Fuels considered – whether arrangements constituted employer as agent such that cars not ‘made available’ by it – limitation of charge when property in cars transferred to directors on exercise of purchase option – whether any omission from income tax returns and inaccuracy in Class 1A returns brought about by carelessness – appeal allowed in part in principle
[2021] UKFTT 300 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.667923