Category: Taxes Management

De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Howe, Surveyor of Taxes: HL 1905

The appellant Company was registered in the Cape Colony and it’s business was mining for diamonds in mines which it possessed in South Africa, and selling the diamonds there under annual contracts to a syndicate for delivery there. The Head Office was in South Africa, and general meetings were always held there. Some of the directors resided in South Africa and weekly meetings of the directors were held there. But the majority of the directors resided in England, and the meetings in London were the meetings at which the real control was exercised in all the important business of the company, except the actual mining operations. The sales of the Diamonds were controlled by the London board.
Held: The company was resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of income tax. A foreign corporation may reside in this country for the purposes of income tax.
The question of where a company was resident was one of fact: ‘In applying the conception of residence to a company, we ought, I think, to proceed as nearly as we can upon the analogy of an individual. A company cannot eat or sleep, but it can keep house and do business. We ought, therefore, to see where it really keeps house and does business . . The decision of Kelly C.B. and Huddleston B. in the Calcutta Jute Mills v. Nicholson and the Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson, now thirty years ago, involved the principle [is] that a company resides for purposes of income tax where its real business is carried on . . I regard that as the true rule, and the real business is carried on where the central control and management actually abides.’
Whether any particular case falls within that rule is a ‘pure question of fact, to be determined not according to the construction of this or that regulation or bye-law, but upon scrutiny of the course of business and trading.’

Lord Loreburn LC
[1906] AC 455, (1905) 2 KB 612, 13 Mans 394, 22 TLR 34, 5 Tax Cas 198
England and Wales
Citing:
Adopted – Calcutta Jute Mills Co Ltd v Nicholson 1876
(Court of Exchequer) The residence of a company for tax purposes is decided by where the ‘central management and control’ is. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Wood v Holden (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 8-Apr-2005
The parties had entered into complex share transactions for the sale of their trading business, and sought to avoid liability for capital gains tax.
Held: Gains on disposals between members of a non-resident group of companies were exempt. The . .
Cited – Wood and Another v Holden (HMIT) CA 26-Jan-2006
Husband and wife sold their business, arranging matters so as to avoid paying Capital Gains Tax by transferring their interest between members of a group of companies which was non-resident.
Held: The scheme was effective. The sole real issue . .
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 . .
Cited – Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV and Others ChD 5-Jan-2022
Security required for Bitcoin claim
Two applications for security for costs. The claimant claimed against fifteen overseas residents requiring a re-write of cryotocurrency systems so that he could recover sums he said were due to him in respect of Bitcoin assets which he said have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Company, Income Tax

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.224771

TWL(GB) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Oct 2011

Closure notice – application made before substantive reply to initial request from HMRC for business records – applicant did not attend hearing of application, despite having confirmed its wish to continue with application – application dismissed – Tribunal considering order for costs of its own volition – order for Applicant to make representations on costs issue within 28 days

[2011] UKFTT 682 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.449635

Lorimer v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 9 May 2016

FTTTx PROCEDURE – application to make appeal out of time – closure notice -assessments and penalties – income tax and VAT – whether ill health a reasonable excuse – Rules 5(3) (a) and 20 (4) of the ‘Tribunal Rules 2009’ – Data Select and Aberdeen City applied – BPP Holdings discussed – application refused

[2016] UKFTT 315 TC
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564834

Catal v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Appeal): FTTTx 6 May 2016

Ftttx INCOME TAX – late submission of tax returns – assessments under Section 36 Taxes Management Act 1970 – imposition of penalties under Schedule 41 to Finance Act 2008 – whether properly notified by HMRC – no – penalties imposed under Schedule 56 to Finance Act 2009 – whether reasonable excuse – no – whether appeal can be made against interest charged under Section 86 Taxes Management Act 1970 – no

[2016] UKFTT 311 TC
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564363

Townend v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 22 Apr 2016

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalty assessment (s 95 Taxes Management Act 1970) – Relevance of Offshore Disclosure Facility – Calculation of tax difference – Appropriate levels of abatement for disclosure, co-operation and seriousness – Appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 276 TC
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 95
England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564359

Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 May 2016

The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal.
Held: With one exception, under rule 10(1), the FTT can only make two types of costs order. The first is a wasted costs order under sub-para (a), and the other is an order for costs where a party has behaved unreasonably under sub-para (b). The one exception is under sub-para (c), which envisages that there will be no such limitation on the FTT’s jurisdiction to award costs if two conditions are satisfied – namely (i) the proceedings are a ‘Complex case’ under Rule 23, and (ii) the taxpayer has not served a request (within the requisite 28-day period) that there should be no potential liability under rule 10(1)(c). Both the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal had approached the case on the basis that this wa a complex case, but that, a notice having been served, the FTTTx had no power to orders any save wasted costs or for unreasonable conduct. The interpretation suggested by the taxpayer would undermine the no costs shifting basis of the rules.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 24, [2016] WLR(D) 254, [2016] 1 WLR 1939, [2016] 3 All ER 719, [2016] STC 1385, [2016] STI 1531, [2016] BTC 20, UKSC 2014/0114
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 2 5, Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 29(1) 29(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
At CA – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the . .
At FTTTx – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Jun-2011
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
At UTTC – HM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .
Cited – HMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd UTTC 6-Feb-2012
UTTC COSTS – Transitional appeal – Appeal by HMRC against direction under Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009, Sch 3, para 7 for 1986 applying 2009 Rules to the proceedings – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Taxes Management

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563292

Charman, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 25 Apr 2016

‘Renewed application by the Claimant, Mr Charman, for permission to bring a claim for judicial review against the decision of the Defendants’ Tax Disputes Resolution Board (‘TDRB’) to recommend the rejection of an offer of settlement of an ongoing dispute with HMRC, which is the subject of a statutory appeal, made by him in the course of without prejudice negotiations; and against the subsequent decision by three Tax Commissioners to follow that recommendation. The challenge to the decision of the Commissioners is made primarily on the basis that it was based on a recommendation from the TDRB that is legally unsustainable.’

Andrews DBE J
[2016] EWHC 854 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562899

E Buyer UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 10 Mar 2016

UTTC PROCEDURE – MTIC appeals – allegations of knowledge that appellant’s transactions orchestrated and contrived and formed part of an overall scheme to defraud the Revenue – whether HMRC’s statement of case alleged dishonesty and therefore whether sufficiently particularised – whether standard disclosure of relevant documents appropriate

[2016] UKUT 123 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management, VAT

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562430

Oz Build Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Nov 2011

FTTTx PAYE – year end returns – penalties for late submission – electronic submission – electronic receipt received – no record of receipt by HMRC – reasonable excuse – yes – appeal allowed – section 98A Taxes Management Act 1970

[2011] UKFTT 735 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 98A
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.449668

Intelligent Management UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Nov 2011

FTTTx P35 return – Penalty for late return (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.98A) – Reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed

[2011] UKFTT 704 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 98A
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not Followed – Chichester v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Jun-2012
FTTTx Penalty; late payment; fairness; Jussila v Finland. ‘Reasonable excuse’. Honest and genuine belief amounts to ‘reasonable excuse’. Honest belief – test – purely subjective. Even an objectively unreasonable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.449661

Advance Consulting (Partnership) and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Sep 2012

Application for permission to extend the time for appealing – jurisdiction of tribunal – whether taxpayer must apply to HMRC in writing before seeking permission from the tribunal – no, but there must be an oral request – overriding objective – application to extend time granted

[2012] UKFTT 567 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.466146

Archer v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 29 Feb 2016

Procedure -costs application- basic category case – APN – HMRC failure to issue closure notice -unreasonable actions in forcing bringing of proceedings-delay in issuing notice -Rule 10(1)(b) Tribunal Rules -held- HMRC not unreasonable in defending proceedings – behaviour prior to issue of proceedings not determinative.

[2016] UKFTT 141 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561847

Astrid Koyeni-Efreeitems (Partnership) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Jan 2012

FTTTx Section 93A (2) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late filing of partnership return – paper return 94 days late – Appellant says unable to file partnership return online as requisite software unavailable unless commercial software purchased – no reasonable excuse – appeal disallowed

[2012] UKFTT 13 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 93A(2)
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.450776

Hmrc (ROOT2 Tax Ltd) v Revenue and Customs (Preliminary Issue – Application for Penalty Under Section 98C and 100C Taxes Management Act 1970): FTTTx 22 Sep 2021

application for penalty under section 98C and 100C Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether penalty application made outside time limit in section 103(4) Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether duty to notify only when promoter first became aware of any transaction forming part of scheme of notifiable arrangements or each time promoter becomes aware of new implementation of that scheme

[2021] UKFTT 346 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.669743

Stirling (T/A Back 2 Roots) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Jan 2012

Appeal against late finalising penalty for partnership return – no return submitted – confusion over what was sent- Appellant alleges sent same details as previous years – was he properly notified – no clear evidence of notice being sent out – appeal allowed.

[2012] UKFTT 143 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.451942

Porter v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 Jan 2012

Amendments to self-assessment returns for 2000-01, 2001-01 and 2002-03 – closure notices – appeal against closure notices – review offered but no response received – appeal deemed determined – Appellant seeking permission of Tribunal to make a late appeal – balancing exercise in the light of the overriding objective – balance clearly in favour of HMRC – permission to appeal refused

[2012] UKFTT 87 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.451940

Qualapharm Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 17 Feb 2016

FTTTx INFORMATION NOTICES – whether certain documents and information required were statutory records- yes – whether notices issued other than to check the taxpayer’s tax position – no – whether the appellant’s offer of conditional compliance was compliance – no – whether reasonable excuse for non-compliance – no – appeal against notices and penalties dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 100 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560234

PGPH Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 27 Jan 2016

FTTTx PROCEDURE – application to bar HMRC from further part in proceedings – alternative application for a limited bar – application for ‘unless’ order – Rules 7(2)(c) – (d) and 8 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009

[2016] UKFTT 46 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559907

Taylor (T/As Draycott Deli) v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 15 Jan 2016

FTTTX PAYE – late submission of Employer’s Annual Return – whether the level of the penalty is reasonable – Decision of Upper Tribunal in Hok Ltd applies. Whether there was reasonable excuse for late submission of return – No.

[2016] UKFTT 28 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559913

City Shoes Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 26 Jan 2016

The claimant companies, operators of Employee Benefit Trust schemes sought judicial review of the decisions by the Commissioners to limit the benefits available to each of them under the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility in relation to their EBTs. They said that the Decisions were so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power on the part of the Commissioners.

Whipple J
[2016] EWHC 107 (Admin)
Bailii

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559287

Derrin Brothers Properties Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v A Judge of The First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and Others: CA 15 Jan 2016

‘This appeal concerns the powers of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (‘HMRC’) pursuant to schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 (‘schedule 36′) to require a third party to provide information and documents for checking the tax position of a resident or overseas taxpayer by way of assistance to another country, in the present case Australia. It raises issues as to the relationship between those powers and the European Convention on Human Rights’

[2016] EWCA Civ 15
Bailii
Finance Act 2008
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558724

HT and Co (Drinks) Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTX 11 Dec 2015

PROCEDURE – application for a stay pending determination of concurrent judicial review proceedings – overlap of issues – risk of tribunal proceedings being moot or of academic interest – interests of fairness and justice

[2015] UKFTT 663 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557176

The Leasing Number 1 Partnership v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 6 Oct 2015

FTTTx PROCEDURE – Costs – Whether appellants acted unreasonably in not withdrawing appeals sooner – No – Whether evidence of ‘without prejudice’ documents and negotiations admissible in resisting respondents application – Application dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 601 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556397

Chalcot Training Ltd v Ralph and Another: ChD 5 May 2020

The company had entered into an investment scheme (E Shares) to avert liability to tax. On the assumed failure of that scheme the company now sought to avoid set aside all the material transactions that were entered into as part of its E Shares scheme on the grounds that they were unlawful on various company law grounds. The Company said that the transactions should properly be characterised as distributions to shareholders, rather than remuneration to directors/employees (as they were described), and that they were therefore unlawful; additionally, the Company asserts that the transactions fell foul of restrictions in the 2006 Act relating to the issue of shares at a discount (s.580) and the payment of commissions (ss.552 and 553).
Held: The claims were dismissed.

Michael Green QC
[2020] EWHC 1054 (Ch)
Bailii
Companies Act 2006 580 552 53
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Company

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.650754

PML Accounting Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Sep 2015

FTTTx PENALTIES – taxpayer information notice issued to alleged MSC Provider – compliance with information notice – reasonable excuse – whether notice related to tax position of MSC Provider or of its clients – whether third party notice should have been issued – validity of notice – rights of clients under Article 8 ECHR – Schedule 36, Finance Act 2008

[2015] UKFTT 440 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2008, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552721

Ali v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Sep 2015

FTTTx PROCEDURE – bankruptcy of appellant – standing to bring proceedings for permission to notify appeals late and to argue the appeals if permission given – held no standing in absence of authority from trustee in bankruptcy – application for permission struck out for want of jurisdiction.

[2015] UKFTT 464 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552718

Singh v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Nov 2011

COMPENSATION PAYMENT for loss of office – Post Office Network Reinvention – whether capital payment for goodwill – or compensation for loss of office- payment compensation for loss of office – HMRC out of time to raise discovery assessment – section 29 (4) Taxes Management Act 1970 – appeal allowed

[2011] UKFTT 707 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 29(4)
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.449675

Baruela v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 27 Aug 2015

FTTTx PROCEDURE – application to strike out appeals – appeals against notice of amendments during progress of enquiry – s 9C TMA – right to notify appeal to tribunal – TMA, s 31 and 49A – whether enquiries for relevant years had been completed – closure notice – tribunal jurisdiction – whether appeals in respect of appealable matters should be struck out because a takings build up exercise for an open year had not been completed

[2015] UKFTT 422 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551994

Indigo Media Partnership v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 25 Aug 2015

FTTTx PROCEDURE – applications for permission to notify late appeals – discretion – Data Select Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs and Advocate General for Scotland v General Commissioners for Aberdeen City applied – applications refused

[2015] UKFTT 424 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551997

Gold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 20 Feb 2015

FTTTx PROCEDURE – whether there is an interaction between self-assessment enquiries, corporation tax enquiries and Schedule 36 Notices and penalties on the one hand, and possible criminal prosecution on the other – adjournment and directions for a preliminary hearing on these issues of principle – whether cases should remain joined – whether to grant privacy direction – whether to recategorise as complex – held, cases to remain joined but recategorised as complex, privacy direction not granted

[2015] UKFTT 432 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Gold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 8-Feb-2016
INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – preliminary hearing on matters of law – COP9 letter issued to Mr Budhdeo (‘Mr B’) – contractual disclosure offered and refused – whether FTT has jurisdiction to close a ‘COP9 enquiry’ – no -whether HMRC using SA and CT . .
See Also – Gold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other) FTTTx 16-Jan-2017
INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – appeals against Sch 36 Notices and against penalties – applications to close enquiries – whether to stay the appeals and applications behind Mr Budhdeo’s judicial review application – Veolia distinguished – whether . .
See Also – Gold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Appeals Against Sch 36 Notices and Applications To Close Enquiries) FTTTx 25-Apr-2017
Corporation Tax – Appeals Against Sch 36 Notices and Applications To Close Enquiries . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551992

Technetix Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 27 Jul 2015

FTTTx PROCEDURE – costs – whether representative duly authorised – yes – whether appellant should be permitted to make an application for costs out of time -Leeds City Council and McCarthy and Stone considered – Leeds City Council followed – principle in Data Select applied – application refused

[2015] UKFTT 369 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551526

Camping-On-Tyne v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 17 Jul 2015

FTTTx PAYE – late submission of P35 form – penalties – (1) whether leave to appeal late appropriate – No – (2) whether ‘reasonable excuse’ – No – Taxes Management Act 1970 and Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 – Appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 359 (TC)
Bailii
Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003, Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550631

Paniec (T/A Pan Pol Edward Paniec Transport Samochodowy) v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 10 Sep 2020

Adoption of witness statement by other Border Force Officer – that officer unable to connect to the video hearing platform – application for adjournment refused – whether to accept hearsay evidence in representative’s written submission – held, no EXCISE – seizure of trailer – whether Border Force’s decision to restore for a fee was reasonable – yes – appeal refused.

[2020] UKFTT 360 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.654112

Garrod v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Jul 2015

FTTTx VAT – online filing – obligation to tick a box stating taxpayer had read HMRC’s terms and conditions for online filing – whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider whether lawful for HMRC to impose the obligation – yes – whether it was lawful – no – penalty for not filing online discharged

[2015] UKFTT 353 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550560

APVCO 19 Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Treasury and Another: CA 30 Jun 2015

The primary issue in this case is whether certain retrospective tax legislation should be declared to be incompatible with the appellants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights

Black, Floyd, Vos LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 648, [2015] STI 2021, [2015] WLR(D) 279, [2015] BTC 26, [2015] STC 2272
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Human Rights, Taxes Management, Stamp Duty

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549746

Revenue and Customs v Tager: UTTC 6 Mar 2015

UTTC FA 2008 Sch 36 para 1 – failure of respondents to comply with many of requirements of notices – continued failure despite imposition of daily penalties pursuant to Sch 36 para 39 – whether tax-related penalties should be imposed pursuant to para 50 – yes – scale of penalties to be imposed

[2015] UKUT 40 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549081

Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd: HL 16 May 2002

The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of ensuring human rights as a right of privacy, and is recognised in European law (A M and S Europe Ltd). A statute which sought to overrule such rights had to be much clearer to achieve that effect. Reference to the protection of privilege in one subsection was not sufficient to exclude the protection of privilege in other subsections by implication. A necessary implication is not the same as a reasonable implication: ‘A necessary implication is one which necessarily follows from the express provisions of the statute construed in their context. It distinguishes between what it would have been sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably have included and what it is clear that the express language of the statute shows that the statute must have included. A necessary implication is a matter of express language and logic not interpretation.’
Lord Hoffmann set out the reason underlying legal professional privilege, and its importance: ‘LPP is a fundamental human right long established in the common law. It is a necessary corollary of the right of any person to obtain skilled advice about the law. Such advice cannot be effectively obtained unless the client is able to put all the facts before the adviser without fear that they may afterwards be disclosed and used to his prejudice.’
. . And the courts will: ‘construe general words in a statute, although literally capable of having some startling or unreasonable consequence, such as overriding fundamental human rights, as not having been intended to do so. An intention to override such rights must be expressly stated or appear by necessary implication’.
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough explained: ‘A necessary implication is not the same as a reasonable implication . . A necessary implication is one which necessarily follows from the express provisions of the statute construed in their context. It distinguishes between what it would have been sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably have included and what it is clear that the express language of the statute shows that the statute must have included. A necessary implication is a matter of express language and logic not interpretation.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote
Times 20-May-2002, Gazette 20-Jun-2002, [2002] UKHL 21, [2002] 2 WLR 1299, [2003] 1 AC 563, 74 TC 511, [2002] STC 786, [2002] BTC 223, [2002] 3 All ER 1, [2002] HRLR 42, [2002] NPC 70, [2002] STI 806, 4 ITL Rep 809
House of Lords, Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 20(1), European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL 19-Oct-1995
No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed
B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
Cited – Campbell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1992
The applicant complained about the compatibility with the European Convention of the Prisons rule 74(4) which provided that ‘every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor . . and it shall be within the discretion of the Governor . .
Cited – Foxley v United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jun-2000
A bankrupt was suspected of disposing of his assets to avoid a confiscation order. The trustee in bankruptcy obtained an order for the bankrupt’s post to be diverted to her whilst he was in prison. She opened all post and copied it before forwarding . .
Cited – AM and S Europe Ltd v Commission of The European Communities ECJ 18-May-1982
The court set out the rationale for legal professional privilege: ‘Whether it is described as the right of the client or the duty of the lawyer, this principle has nothing to do with the protection or privilege of the lawyer. It springs essentially . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Ex parte Taylor (No 2) 1990
. .
Appeal from – Regina v A Special Commissioner ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd; Regina v Martyn Rounding (HM Inspector of Taxes) ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd CA 2-Mar-2001
The inspector of taxes had power to issue a notice requiring access to legally privileged material. The power given by the section included certain exceptions, and those were not to be extended. The special or general commissioners had no power to . .
Doubted – Parry-Jones v The Law Society CA 1969
The Society had, for regulatory purposes, exercised a power under the 1957 Act to call upon the plaintiff, a solicitor, to produce for inspection accounts and other information relating to the conduct of his clients’ affairs. He sought an injunction . .

Cited by:
Cited – B and Others Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet and Co v Auckland District Law Society, Gary J Judd PC 19-May-2003
(New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
Cited – Regina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen had paid rates under a separate statutory rating regime, and paid an additional thirteen million pounds under an apportionment. Edison later complained that in being rated itself, the authorities had . .
Cited – Mount Murray Country Club Ltd and others v Commission of Inquiry Into Mount Murray and Another (1) PC 7-Jul-2003
(Isle of Man) The company appealed an order requiring disclosure of their tax documents to an enquiry. The enquiry into possible corruption had been ordered by the Tynwald.
Held: The provisions of the Act protecting tax documents from . .
Cited – United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and Others and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd CA 23-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed orders requiring them to produce evidence for use in the courts in the US.
Held: It was the pleasure and duty of British courts to respond positively to a letter of request. Public interest required that a court should . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) HL 11-Nov-2004
The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in . .
Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of PW v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, The London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames Admn 20-Jul-2005
W, a child of 14 sought judicial review of an order to remove persons under the age of 16 from dispersal areas in Richmond.
Held: The issue was whether the power given to police to remove youths was permissive or coercive. The power given ‘is . .
Cited – Jackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Cited – Singh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
Cited – Singh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
Cited – Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 28-Jul-2006
Sikh protesters set out to picket a theatre production which they considered to offend their religion. The respondent used a existing ASBO dispersal order which had been obtained for other purposes, to control the demonstration.
Held: The . .
Applied – Regina (Cooke) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners QBD 30-Jan-2007
The claimant solicitor sought a judicial review of a requirement made by the revenue that he must produce the papers of his client taxpayer under the section.
Held: The effect of the section was to require a notice to be given by a . .
Cited – Cooke, Regina (on the Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 30-Jan-2007
The revenue had required production of the taxpayer’s documents held on his behalf by his solicitors, who now applied for judicial review, claiming the protection of section 20.
Held: The protection given to a taxpayer for documents held by . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Cited – Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society of England and Wales CA 14-Jul-2010
Q had provided professional indemnity insurance to a firm of solicitors in which the Law Society had intervened. Claims were made against the firm, but Q declined to pay, saying that the apparently fraudulent activities of the firm fell outside the . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Others CA 13-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether advice given by an accountant could be protected against disclosure by legal professional privilege. The company had taken advice from its accountants, and objected to disclosure of that advice to the tax authorities . .
Cited – Veolia Es Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council and Others CA 29-Oct-2010
An elector sought disclosure under the 1988 Act concerning a contract with certain contractors. The authority refused saying that they were commercially sensitive, and the company said that doisclosure would affect its own human rights.
Held: . .
Cited – The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .
Cited – AJA and Others v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis and Others CA 5-Nov-2013
The Court was asked whether the Investigatory Powers Tribunal had the power to investigate whether police officers acrting as undercover agents, and having sexual relations with those they were themselves investigating had infringed the human rights . .
Cited – Brown, Regina v CACD 29-Jul-2015
The claimant, a patient hld at Rampton Hospital faced charges of attempted murder of two nurses. His lwayers had asked for the right to see their client in private, but eth Hospital objected, insisting on the presence of two nurses at all times. . .
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Cited – Welsh Ministers v PJ SC 17-Dec-2018
A patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may be released from compulsory detention in hospital subject to a community treatment order. The question arising on this appeal is whether a patient’s responsible clinician (may impose . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Taxes Management, Human Rights, European

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.170325

Rapid Brickwork Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Hearings In Private): FTTTx 5 May 2015

FTTTx PROCEDURE – HMRC application for unless order – appointment of representative – legal professional privilege – failure to particularise grounds of appeal – failure to comply with Tribunal direction – company in settlement negotiations with HMRC- Rule 3 considered – application granted – directions issued

[2015] UKFTT 190 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547414

Gatward v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Fixed and Daily Penalties): FTTTx 14 Sep 2020

Schedule 55 and 56 Finance Act 2009 – fixed and daily penalties for failure to file a self-assessment return on time – penalties for late payment – whether taxpayer had a reasonable excuse for her default – appeal allowed. Permission to appeal out of time – allowed.

[2020] UKFTT 363 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.654102

Couldwell Concrete Flooring Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Mar 2015

FTTTx Information Notices – Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 – documents and information required – whether statutory records – no right of appeal – one appeal struck out, one appeal partly struck out – whether other information reasonably required – information required in vague and ambiguous terms – one appeal partly allowed

[2015] UKFTT 135 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2008 Sch36
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545096

London Cellular Communications Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Mar 2014

CASE MANAGEMENT – application by Appellant to admit further witness statements and for parties to share costs of bundles – applications opposed by Respondents – application to admit further witness statements granted – application for shared costs refused – directions

[2014] UKFTT 272 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.525276