PROCEDURE – application for disclosure of communications between HMRC instructing solicitor and HMRC expert – scope of without prejudice and litigation privilege – interpretation of CPR 35.10 and 35.12
[2020] UKFTT 290 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.652745
FTTTx Gross payment scheme for construction industry – decision to withdraw gross payment status from Appellant for failure of compliance condition – Appellant a partnership – partners defaulted in relation to self assessment obligations – Appellant suffered cash flow difficulties because of late payment by main customers over a number of years – pattern of paying self assessment by instalments – did this pattern of payment amount to an informal arrangement giving Appellant a reasonable excuse for FA 2004 purposes – in the circumstances yes – appeal allowed
[2010] UKFTT 158 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.422164
SECTION 59C penalty for late paid tax – reasonable excuse? Appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 515 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.449458
INCOME TAX – Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 – fixed penalty for failure to file a CIS return on time – whether taxpayer had a reasonable excuse for his default – appeal dismissed. Application for leave to appeal out of time – dismissed.
[2021] UKFTT 243 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.666247
Application – rule 8 debarring of HMRC – preliminary issue – direction – costs
[2021] UKFTT 264 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.666242
The case concerned section 478, which had monstrous and unintended results, if applied in accordance with its natural meaning. The Commissioners did not seek to apply the section in a manner which produced such results. The court held: ‘One should be taxed by law, and not be untaxed by concession’
Walton J
[1979] Ch 177
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 478
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bates v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1968
Section 402, on its plain meaning, produced results in some cases which were ‘monstrous’ and which Parliament can never have intended. The Commissioners had not sought to amend the legislation, but realising the monstrous result of giving effect to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 18-Jun-2003
The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife’s death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent . .
Appeal from – Vestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1979
Taxes are imposed upon subjects by Parliament. A citizen cannot be taxed unless he is designated in clear terms by a taxing Act as a taxpayer and the amount of his liability is clearly defined. A proposition that whether a subject is to be taxed or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.184328
The Commissioners of Inland Revenue do not have, any more than does any other emanation of the Crown, any power to suspend or dispense with laws. ‘It is at this point that there arises what Mr Potter, for the taxpayers, has denominated as a serious constitutional question; namely what rights the Inland Revenue Commissioners have to pick and choose when recovering tax. The Solicitor-General said, and doubtless rightly said, that the commissioners are under no duty to recover every halfpenny of tax which may be due. One may say ‘Amen’ to that very readily, because the costs of recovery of extremely small amounts of tax would far outweigh the tax recovered. One expects the tax authorities to behave sensibly. In this connection I was referred to section 1 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 and to section 1 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, but I do not think that either of these provisions has any real bearing on the matter. What the revenue authorities, through the Solicitor-General, are here claiming is a general dispensing power, no more and no less. He submitted that the system of extra-statutory concessions was well known and well recognised, and that what was happening in the present case was no more than the grant of an additional extra-statutory concession. In the first place, I, in company with many judges before me, am totally unable to understand upon what basis the Inland Revenue Commissioners are entitled to make extra-statutory concessions. To take a very simple example (since example is clearly called for), upon what basis have the commissioners taken it upon themselves to provide that income tax is not to be charged upon a miner’s free coal and allowances in lieu thereof? That this should be the law is doubtless quite correct; I am not arguing the merits, or even suggesting that some other result, as a matter of equity, should be reached. But this, surely, ought to be a matter for Parliament, and not the commissioners. If this kind of concession can be made, where does it stop; and why are some groups favoured as against others?’
Walton J
[1979] Ch 198
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 18-Jun-2003
The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife’s death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent . .
Appeal from – Vestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1979
Taxes are imposed upon subjects by Parliament. A citizen cannot be taxed unless he is designated in clear terms by a taxing Act as a taxpayer and the amount of his liability is clearly defined. A proposition that whether a subject is to be taxed or . .
Cited – Churchhouse, Regina (on the Application of) v Inland Revenue Admn 4-Apr-2003
The taxpayer was a revenue informer one whose trade is described by Coke as ‘viperous vermin [who] under the reverend mantle of law and justice instituted for protection of the innocent, and the good of the Commonwealth, did vexe and depauperize the . .
Cited – Futter and Another v Revenue and Customs; Pitt v Same SC 9-May-2013
Application of Hastings-Bass Rule
F had created two settlements. Distributions were made, but overlooking the effect of section 2(4) of the 2002 Act, creating a large tax liability. P had taken advice on the investment of the proceeds of a damages claim and created a discretionary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.184329
The court was asked whether a scheme (SHIPS 2) for obtaining relief from tax was made up of a pre-ordained, composite, artifical and tax-motivated events and could be disregarded for fiscal purposes.
If there are lacunas in a statutory regime which enable tax avoidance, a purposive interpretation may not always remove them
Mummery, Thomas, Toulson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 407, [2011] BTC 261, [2011] STI 1444, [2011] STC 1269
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.432651
Taxes are imposed upon subjects by Parliament. A citizen cannot be taxed unless he is designated in clear terms by a taxing Act as a taxpayer and the amount of his liability is clearly defined. A proposition that whether a subject is to be taxed or not, or, if he is, the amount of his liability, is to be decided (even though within a limit) by an administrative body represents a radical departure from constitutional principle. It may be that the revenue could persuade Parliament to enact such a proposition in such terms that the courts would have to give effect to it: but, unless it has done so, the courts, acting on constitutional principles, not only should not, but cannot, validate it. When Parliament imposes a tax, it is the duty of the commissioners to assess and levy it upon and from those who are liable by law. Of course they may, indeed should, act with administrative commonsense. To expend a large amount of taxpayer’s money in collecting, or attempting to collect, small sums would be an exercise in futility: and no one is going to complain if they bring humanity to bear in hard cases. I accept also that they cannot, in the absence of clear power, tax any given income more than once. But all of this falls far short of saying that so long as they do not exceed a maximum they can decide that beneficiary A is to bear so much tax and no more, or that beneficiary B is to bear no tax. This would be taxation by self-asserted administrative discretion and not by law. The fact in the present case is that Parliament has laid down no basis on which tax can be apportioned where there are numerous discretionary beneficiaries. The Commissioners had no power to mitigate the gross injustice that would result from the strict application of the section, as interpreted by them. The devices resorted to by the Commissioners were unconstitutional.
HL Income tax – Avoidance of tax – Transfer of assets – Income payable to trustees of settlement resident abroad – Income accumulated and invested – Income from such investments also accumulated and invested in two funds – Investments including shares in wholly-owned overseas companies – Capital sums paid out of each fund to discretionary beneficiaries (other than the transferors) ordinarily resident in the U.K. – Capital sum paid to mother of infant beneficiary – Whether infant ‘received’ or ‘entitled to receive’ such capital sum – Whether each of such beneficiaries had ‘power to enjoy’ income of (a) the trustees, (b) the overseas companies – Whether such income deemed to be income of each of such beneficiaries in years prior to, including, and subsequent to, year of receipt – Power of Board of Inland Revenue to apportion such income between selected beneficiaries – Income Tax Act 1952, s 412 (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) – Finance Act 1969, s 33 – Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890, s 1 – Taxes Management Act 1970, s 1.
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Dilhorne, Lord Salmon, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Edmund-Davies
[1980] AC 1148, (1979) 54 Tax Cas 503, [1979] 3 WLR 915, [1979] UKHL TC – 54 – 503
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 1, Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 1, Finance Act 1969 33, Income Tax Act 1952 412(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Absolom v Talbot 1943
Scott LJ said: ‘No judicial countenance can or ought to be given in matters of taxation to any system of extra-legal concessions.’ . .
Appeal from – Vestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners (No 2) ChD 1979
The Commissioners of Inland Revenue do not have, any more than does any other emanation of the Crown, any power to suspend or dispense with laws. ‘It is at this point that there arises what Mr Potter, for the taxpayers, has denominated as a serious . .
Appeal from – Vestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 1979
The case concerned section 478, which had monstrous and unintended results, if applied in accordance with its natural meaning. The Commissioners did not seek to apply the section in a manner which produced such results. The court held: ‘One should . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited by:
Cited – Scottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Jul-2011
The taxpayer insurance company had transferred sums from accounts designated as Capital Reserves. The Revenue said that these were properly part of the profit and loss accounts for the respective tax years, and chargeable receipts.
Held: The . .
Cited – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.184331
The General Commissioner had held that an inspector’s refusal to renew a certificate allowing the taxpayer construction company to pay its sub-contractors without deducting income tax, infringed that company’s rights. The inspector appealed.
Held: The certificate itself would be a possession within the Convention, but the right to have it re-issued was not such a right in property. The requirement to deduct sums for tax did deprive the sub-contractors of a possession. However a state enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in taxation matters. An interference with property to ensure payment of tax could be justified. The provisions were not arbitrary or excessive, and need not be read down to make them compliant. The decision of the general commissioners was wrong and was set aside.
Ferris J said: ‘It became notorious during the latter part of last century that many sub-contractors engaged in the construction industry disappeared without settling their tax liabilities with a consequential loss of revenue to the Exchequer. In order to remedy that abuse Parliament enacted legislation going back to the early 1970s under which a contractor is obliged except in the case of a sub-contractor who holds a relevant certificate to deduct and pay over to the Revenue a proportion of all payments made to the sub-contractor in respect of the labour content of any sub-contract. The amount so deducted and paid over is in due course allowed as a credit against the sub-contractors liability to the Revenue. The need to make and pay over such deductions can be an irritation to the contractor obliged to carry out this exercise. It also adversely effects the cash flow of the sub-contractor. Accordingly it is advantageous to a sub-contractor to have a statutory certificate rendering such a deduction unnecessary. The provision of such a certificate tends to make the sub-contractor holding the certificate a more attractive party for the contractor to deal with and by enabling the sub-contractor to receive the contract price without deduction improves the sub-contractor’s case flow.
The legislation which governs the present regime is now contained in sections 559 to 567 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The basic requirement is imposed by section 559. It imposes the general requirement on a contractor to make deductions from payments made to a sub-contractor and to pay over to the Revenue the amounts deducted. The current percentage required to be deducted is 18 per cent. The section also prescribes how such amounts are to be treated in the hands of the Revenue.
Section 561 provides an exception from the requirements of section 559. In the case of a payment made to a sub-contractor who holds a certificate under section 561 which is in force when the payment is made the issue of such a certificate is governed by section 561 itself. In order to be entitled to the grant of a certificate the taxpayer must satisfy certain conditions. In the case of a company the conditions are those set out in section 565.’
Ferris J
Times 27-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2659 (Ch), [2002] STC 1544
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 561 565, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tom Hudson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v JDC Services Limited ChD 26-Mar-2004
The taxpayer company had been refused a statutory Construction Industry Scheme certificate. The General Commissioners allowed the company’s appeal and itself issued a certificate. The revenue said the Commissioners had no jurisdiction either to hear . .
Cited – HM Inspector of Taxes v CBL Cable Contractors Ltd ChD 23-Jun-2005
. .
Cited – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.178617
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its registration for gross payment.
Held: The company’s appeal failed: ‘the company’s submission comes down to a short point: that is, given the existence of a discretion in section 66, it must in the absence of any specific restriction be treated as an unfettered discretion. That to my mind overlooks the basic principle that any statutory discretion must be exercised consistently with the objects and scope of the statutory scheme.’
Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 31, [2018] 1 WLR 3117, [2018] STI 1110, [2018] 4 All ER 95, [2018] STC 1394, [2018] WLR(D) 348, [2018] BTC 24, UKSC 2017/0016
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii ummary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 10 May 2018 am Video, SC 10 May 2018 pm Video
Finance Act 2004, Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Oct-2012
FTTTxp INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – whether properly exercised – Failure to take into account effect of cancellation . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd UTTC 13-Jul-2015
UTTC INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s 66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – scope of – whether properly exercised – failure to take into account effect of . .
At CA – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 24-Nov-2016
Important point of principle concerning the power of HMRC, to cancel the registration of a taxpayer for gross payment under the legislation which governs the Construction Industry Scheme. . .
Cited – Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) v Vicky Construction Ltd ChD 6-Dec-2002
The General Commissioner had held that an inspector’s refusal to renew a certificate allowing the taxpayer construction company to pay its sub-contractors without deducting income tax, infringed that company’s rights. The inspector appealed.
Cited – Barnes (HMIT) v Hilton Main Construction ChD 15-Apr-2005
The revenue had refused to renew the respondent’s certificate, and now itself appealed against the contractor’ success on appeal to the General Commissioners. . .
Cited – Denley v Revenue and Customs UTTC 25-Aug-2017
Excise Duties . .
Cited – Regina v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Hook CA 1976
The applicant applied to have quashed the decision of the local council to exclude him from trading in the market and to revoke his right to have a stall.
Held: He succeeded on the grounds that the decision had been taken in breach of the . .
Cited – Gasus Dosier-Und Fodertechnik Gmbh v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Feb-1995
Even where an interference in property rights involved the complete loss of a person’s economic interest in an asset for the benefit of the State, an absence of compensation might still be compatible with Article 1. ‘The Court recalls that the . .
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 – The National and Provincial Building Society, The Leeds Permanent Building Society And The Yorkshire Building Society v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Oct-1997
ECHR United Kingdom – applicants’ legal claims to restitution of monies paid under invalidated tax provisions extinguished under the effects of retrospective legislation (section 53 of Finance Act 1991 and . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
Cited – Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.617856
The Revenue had refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the taxpayer in the same form it had granted for over twenty years. The taxpayer complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new approach to late applications, brought in without any warning, was so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power, notwithstanding that the court accepted that the practice was not such as to engage the legitimate expectation doctrine.
The Commissioners are under a common law duty to treat taxpayers fairly, and not to discriminate without justification between taxpayers. It is not always a condition for a legitimate expectation to arise that there should be a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation by the public authority, the test is whether the public authority has acted so unfairly that its conduct amounts to an abuse of power.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘the categories of unfairness are not closed, and precedent should act as a guide not a cage’ and ‘These points cumulatively persuade me that on the unique facts of this case the Revenue’s argument should be rejected. On the history here, I consider that to reject Unilever’s claims in reliance on the time limit, without clear and general advance notice, is so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power’.
Simon Brown LJ said: ”Unfairness amounting to an abuse of power’ as envisaged in Preston and the other Revenue cases is unlawful not because it involves conduct such as would offend some equivalent private law principle, not principally indeed because it breaches a legitimate expectation that some different substantive decision will be taken, but rather because either it is illogical or immoral or both for a public authority to act with conspicuous unfairness and in that sense abuse its power. As Lord Donaldson MR said in R v ITC, ex p TSW: ‘The test in public law is fairness, not an adaptation of the law of contract or estoppel’.’
and ‘on the one hand mere unfairness – conduct which may be characterised as ‘a bit rich’ but nevertheless understandable, and on the other hand a decision so outrageously unfair that it should not be allowed to stand.’
Simon Brown LJ, Sir Thomas Bingham MR
[1996] STC 681
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Unilever Plc and Others QBD 12-Sep-1994
The Inland Revenue is to notify taxpayer of a change in acquiescence in practice to late payment. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 18-Jun-2003
The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife’s death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent . .
Cited – Rowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
Dictum Adopted – Regina (On the Application of Bajram Zeqiri) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2001
The applicant’s case had been delayed to allow a test case as to whether Germany was to be treated as a safe country for the return of asylum seekers. Before the test case appeal was abandoned, circumstances changed so as to allow certification of . .
Cited – Rashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
Applied – Regina v The National Lottery Commission ex parte Camelot Group Plc Admn 21-Sep-2000
The Commission had considered bids tendered in open competition to run The National Lottery. Neither of the two candidates who entered bids was considered to have satisfied all the criteria necessary to be given the relevant licence. The Commission . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham and Others), Regina (on The Application of) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance and Others Admn 13-Feb-2013
Judicial review was sought of the changes to the marking systems for GCSE English in 2012.
Held: The claim failed. Though properly brought, the failure was in the underlying structue of the qualification, and not in the respondent’s attempts . .
Cited – Gallaher Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Competition and Markets Authority SC 16-May-2018
Extent and consequences of duties of ‘equal treatment’ or ‘fairness’, said to have been owed by the Office of Fair Trading to those subject to investigation under the Competition Act 1998. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.184333
The appellant had requested a hardship allowance so as not to have to pay claimed VAT before the hearing of an appeal. That was refused, and the claimant now said that the rules restricting an appeal against such a refusal were unlawful.
Held: The right to appeal had not been abolished, and remained.
Lord Neuberger MR, Arden, Moses LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1401, [2013] QB 860, [2013] STC 1557, [2012] WLR(D) 303, [2012] BVC 333, [2013] 2 WLR 1136, [2012] STI 3230
Bailii, WLRD
Finance Act 2008, Value Added Tax Ac t 1994 84(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Totel Distribution Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 24-Feb-2005
VDT VAT – input tax – alleged carousel fraud – Commissioners unable to establish circulation of payment without tribunal inferring that certain payments had been made to particular party in chain of transactions . .
At VDT – Totel Ltd v Revenue Customs VDT 19-May-2006
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – suspected carousel or MTIC fraud – input tax repayment withheld pending ECJ judgment in Optigen and others – input tax paid with repayment supplement shortly after release of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.465475
Directions for disclosure of documents in an appeal against a refusal of approval under Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme s16(4) FA 1994 where the FTT’s jurisdiction is supervisory.
[2017] UKUT 465 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.665572
Two issues in relation to the way that the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) decides applications from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the approval of third party information notices under para. 3 of Sch. 36 to the Finance Act 2008. First, does the FTT have the power to decide such an application on an inter partes basis, in particular by holding an inter partes oral hearing? Secondly, should any hearing it does hold to consider such an application (whether or not inter partes) be held in public?
Lord Justice Singh
[2021] EWCA Civ 1082
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.666023
First-tier Tribunal refusing permission for late appeal – appeal not late – appeal allowed, and substantive proceedings remitted to First-tier Tribunal
[2021] UKUT 164 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.665564
LATE APPEAL – Martland considered – length of delay is serious and significant – no good reason for delay – in all the circumstances fairness and justice do not support an extension of time – application refused
[2021] UKFTT 128 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 20 July 2021; Ref: scu.663699
Application to require European Commission to disclose a document – application refused
[2021] UKFTT 97 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 20 July 2021; Ref: scu.663698
Appeal against taxpayer information notice
[2021] UKFTT 110 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.663696
Application for closure notices – nature of Tribunal’s jurisdiction – whether reasonable grounds for not giving a closure notice – yes – application refused
[2021] UKFTT 125 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.663700
LATE FILING PENALTIES – whether properly imposed – appeal against daily penalties allowed – whether reasonable excuse – no – whether special circumstances – yes – penalties disproportionate due to taxpayer’s low income and in one year because HMRC advice contributed to late filing- appeal allowed IN PART
[2021] UKFTT 120 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.663680
[2021] UKSC 25
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Fact
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.666000
UTTC Proceeding in the absence of the appellant – appellant providing medical certificate not complying with tribunal’s directions – appellant wishing to delay hearing pending complaints procedure -whether decision of tribunal to go ahead perverse – whether account taken of irrelevant matters. Bias – Porter v MacGill – whether decision of tribunal was such as to give rise to a real possibility of bias by reason of extensive reference to a decision which had been set aside. Decision of FTT set side.
Hellier, Gort TJJ
[2013] UKUT 481 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.521017
PROCEDURE – application for disclosure following a lengthy enquiry – issue in underlying appeal – unallowable purpose – principles to be applied – possession and control – Schlumberger considered – application allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 236 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.663773
Application to amend grounds of appeal – Quah and Martland considered – application rejected
[2021] UKFTT 94 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.663691
Application to admit late documentary and witness evidence – application allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 92 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.663682
PENALTIES – late payment – statement of liability received late – whether reasonable excuse – no – whether special circumstances – no – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 114 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.663697
Schedule 36 FA 2008 information notice – whether information reasonably required – no – appeal allowed
[2021] UKFTT 158 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.663710
PROCEDURE – application for reinstatement of appeal following striking out for breach of an unless direction – Martland v HM Revenue and Customs and Chappell v The Pensions Regulator applied – application refused
[2021] UKFTT 112 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.663685
High income child benefit charge – discovery assessment -whether s 29(1)(a) Taxes Management Act 1970 can be construed as extending to discovery that respondent should have been assessed to income tax in respect of the high income child benefit charge
[2021] UKUT 150 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2021; Ref: scu.665563
Application To Amend Grounds of Appeal – Application Allowed
[2021] UKFTT 101 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2021; Ref: scu.663688
Application for Permission To Appeal Out of Time – substantial delay – no – application refused
[2021] UKFTT 118 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.663702
INCOME TAX – limited liability partnerships – Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, section 863 – whether HMRC had power to open enquiry under Taxes Management Act 1970, section 12AC – whether any enquiry should have been made under Finance Act 1998, Schedule 18, paragraph 24 – whether closure notices issued under Taxes Management Act 1970, section 28B were valid – yes – appeal allowed.
[2020] UKUT 161 (TCC)
Bailii
Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 863, Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.652554
UTTC INCOME TAX – PENALTY – assessment based on suppressed takings of restaurant business – negligent return – standard of proof in penalty proceedings – Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights – whether appellant’s article 6 right to a public hearing within a reasonable time had been contravened – relevant period for assessing delay – whether delay had prejudiced appellant – whether First-tier Tribunal has power to reduce penalty on account of unreasonable delay – TMA 1970, s 100B – whether appellant had discharged the evidential burden to rebut the presumption under TMA, s 101 that the tax assessment was correct – whether on the evidence the First-tier Tribunal’s findings as to suppressed takings were capable of being upset – determination of amount of penalty
[2013] UKUT 353 (TCC), [2013] BTC 1995, [2013] STI 2886, [2014] STC 150
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Khawaja v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 8-Mar-2012
FTTTx Income Tax – Penalties – Suppressed takings from Restaurant business reflected in concealed director’s remuneration – Negligent submission of incorrect Tax Returns – Abatement of penalty. . .
At FTTTx – Revenue and Customs v Khawaja ChD 17-Jul-2008
The court considered the standard of proof required before the Commissioners when considering the application of penalties.
Held: When challenging the assessment of a penalty on a taxpayer, there was no reason why the normal civil standard of . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.521010
The court considered the standard of proof required before the Commissioners when considering the application of penalties.
Held: When challenging the assessment of a penalty on a taxpayer, there was no reason why the normal civil standard of proof shoud not apply.
Mann J
[2008] EWHC 1687 (Ch), Times 20-Oct-2008, [2009] 1 WLR 398, [2008] STI 1748, [2008] STC 2880, [2009] Bus LR 134
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 95(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Han v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2001
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Khawaja v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 8-Mar-2012
FTTTx Income Tax – Penalties – Suppressed takings from Restaurant business reflected in concealed director’s remuneration – Negligent submission of incorrect Tax Returns – Abatement of penalty. . .
At FTTTx – Khawaja v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 12-Aug-2013
UTTC INCOME TAX – PENALTY – assessment based on suppressed takings of restaurant business – negligent return – standard of proof in penalty proceedings – Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights – whether . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.270959
The tribunal was asked whether it had jurisdiction to issue summonses for the appearance of named party employees abroad to give evidence.
Held: The First Tier Tribunal did not have that power. Great care must be taken before interpreting the Tribunal Procedure Rules requirements about sending and delivery of documents with reference to the CPR provisions, in particular Part 6, relating to service.
Warren J P
[2015] WLR(D) 69, [2015] 1 WLR 2949, [2015] BTC 506, [2015] STC 1645, [2015] UKUT 72 (TCC)
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.652569
PROCEDURE – application for reinstatement after appeal struck out – whether FTT followed correct approach
[2021] UKUT 91 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.662813
A local valuation court had decided in 1951 that the Society’s land was exempt from rates under section 1 of the 1843 Act. The exemption was conditional on certain facts relating to the Society and its purpose in occupying the building. In 1956 the land was shown as a rateable in the new valuation list. The Lands Tribunal rejected a submission that a res judicata estoppel arose from the 1951 decision even though it was admitted that there had been no change of circumstances.
Held: The limited jurisdiction of the local valuation court, which might have to form opinions on questions of general law, but only incidentally to its direct function of fixing the assessment and the special position of the valuation officer or equivalent official did not create an assessment binding for future years.
Lord Radcliffe said there was: ‘high and frequent authority for the proposition that it is not in the nature of a decision on one rate or tax that it should settle anything more than the bare issue of that one liability, and that, consequently, it cannot constitute an estoppel when a new issue of liability to a succeeding year’ s rate or tax comes up for adjudication. The question of this liability is a ‘new question.’
Lord Keith said: ‘The valuation officer has a public duty to perform by making periodically every five years a valuation list of all hereditaments, with certain exceptions, in his rating area. He must necessarily reconsider and revise the previous valuation list. He has no personal interest in any appeals taken against his valuations, and has a duty to hold the scales as fairly as he can among the ratepayers affected, the occupiers of the various hereditaments. The general body of ratepayers is constantly changing. With each quinquennium the revaluation will affect a new body of ratepayers. I doubt if the valuation officer owing such a duty to an ever-changing body of ratepayers can be regarded as always the same party in the sense in which that expression is used for the application of the rule of res judicata. What if the appellant society changes its habitat, and moves into another rating area with a different valuation officer?
I emphasise these aspects of the functions of a valuation officer under the statute, for they lead to what I regard as the true answer to the submission for the appellants, which is that a public officer in the position of the respondent cannot be estopped from carrying out his duties under the statute.’
Radcliffe, Cohen, Jenkins LL, Viscount Simons, Keith L
[1960] AC 553
Scientific Societies Act 1843 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs ChD 5-Aug-2009
The taxpayer imported swimwear for sale. The respondent had incorrectly indicated that such swimwear had one classification. The claimant sought to prevent the respondent reclassifying the goods, saying that they had made given binding tariff . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.372323
The House acknowledged the validity of pre-transaction rulings. Such rulings were of assistance both to the respondents and to the taxpayer. Lord Templeman referred to ‘[t]he trick of circular, self-cancelling payments with matching receipts and payments’.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Templeman
[1994] 1 WLR 334
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stockler v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 22-Sep-2009
The taxpayer appealed against a decision confirming the Commissioners’ power to impose a penalty on him. It was said that his solicitors’ firm had negligently understated its profits. A settlement was proposed allowing a withdrawal of the return, . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.375141
Procedure – Application under Rule 5(3)(a) Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 for extension of time to provide notice of appeal to Upper Tribunal under Rule 23(2)(a) – effect of amendments to CPR 3.9 with effect from 1 April 2013 and Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd – application refused
[2014] STI 626, [2014] STC 973, [2014] BVC 504, [2014] UKUT 196 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.525871
RETURN – self-assessment -notice of intention to inquire into return – taxpayer practising as a solicitor – notice requiring taxpayer to produce clients’ ledger and clients’ cash book and certain documents to support the entries in both – whether reasonably required – whether taxpayer’s duty of confidentiality overrides obligation to produce – whether documents covered by legal professional privilege – whether disclosure would contravene Article 8 of the ECHR – whether disclosure would infringe the Data Protection Act 1998 – appeal dismissed – Taxes Management Act 1970 s 19A(2)
[2001] UKSC SPC00274
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.195369
Two applications issued in the context of a very substantial and complex action commenced by the Danish tax authority, Skatteforvaltningen (‘SKAT’), arising out of what SKAT alleges to be a substantial fraud relating to tax payable by Danish companies on shareholder dividends.
Foxton J
[2020] EWHC 1658 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.652440
COSTS – Rule 10 The Tribunal Procedure (Fir st-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – HMRC acting unreasonably – amount of costs – litigant in person – summary assessment
[2018] UKFTT 669 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.632392
PROCEDURE – Information Notices – Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 – documents and information required – whether statutory records – whether reasonably required – appeal dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 678 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.632393
Claim by Danish Authorities for repayment of tax refunds allegedly obtained by misrepresentation.
Mr Justice Andrew Baker
[2021] EWHC 974 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.662374
The claimants sought judicial review of taxation changes which they described as the ‘extreme, unfair and unprecedented retrospective effect’ of legislation overriding all double taxation treaties so as to bring into charge to tax in the UK any share of the income of an overseas firm to which a UK resident is entitled. It was claimed that the changes caused serious concern and potential hardship to the claimants.
Held: Review refused.
Mummery, Sullivan, Tomlinson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 892, [2011] STC 1878, 14 ITL Rep 113, [2011] STI 2305, [2011] BTC 444
Bailii
Finance Act 2008 58
England and Wales
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.442162
PROCEDURE- penalty imposed in accordance with FA 2008, Sch 36, para 50 – parties agreed that decision records incorrect amount but not agreed on correction to be made – whether decision should be amended under slip rule (r 42) or should be set aside and remade (r 43) – neither rule engaged but different course suggested
References: [2015] UKUT 663 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.558966
PROCEDURE – costs – whether the Tribunal has power to order a payment in respect of pro bono costs – s 194, Legal Services Act 2007; s 29, Tribunals, courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – held: no such power in the Tribunal – application refused
References: [2015] UKUT 630 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.558953
PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE ONLINE – strike out application – appellants instructed elderly agent to prepare and submit returns – agent submitted paper returns – whether appellants have reasonable prospect of success in a claim that either they have a reasonable excuse or that they have the right to submit by paper – no – appeals struck out save that part of one appeal concerning another issue and one appeal in respect of which HMRC withdrew the application
References: [2015] UKFTT 547 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556168
FTTTx SCHEDULE 36 THIRD PARTY INFORMATION NOTICE – taxpayer and third party given notice of hearing – whether hearing properly called – no – hearing directed to be as if without notice and in private
References: [2015] UKFTT 518 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556158
References: [2009] EWHC 1708 (Admin), [2009] STI 2195, [2009] BTC 358, [2009] STC 2532
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 29
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.347745
FTTTx Penalty for late filing of personal tax return – whether there was a reasonable excuse lasting throughout the period of default – held no – appeal dismissed
References: [2015] UKFTT 25 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Judges: John N Dent TJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.542051
PROCEDURE – application to set aside decision (or part) under Rule 38 of the F-tT Tax Chamber Rules 2009 – documentary and other procedural irregularities under Rule 38(2(a)-(c) established – not in the interests of justice to set aside the decision or part of it – application refused
References: [2020] UKFTT 305 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 21 September 2020; Ref: scu.653142
References: [2016] UKUT 363 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: UTTC PENALTY – non-compliance with information notice – Schedule 36, Finance Act 2008 – notice requiring production of documents by post or email – whether notice invalid for not specifying production for inspection at an agreed or specified place – no – appeal dismissed
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 11-Nov-16
Ref: 570419
References: [2016] UKUT 235 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Costs decision – appeal against information notice challenge refusal
Last Update: 12-Aug-16
Ref: 567341
References: [2003] HKCFA 52, [2004] 1 HKLRD 77, (2003) 6 HKCFAR 517, ACV 4/2003
Links: Hklii
Coram: Ribeiro PJ, Lord Millett NPJ
Ratio: (Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal) The court was asked as to the accounting treatment of interests incurred in the development for the purpose of generating the profits, and therefore whether the relevant Ordinance prohibited the capitalisation of interest for the purpose of computing the taxpayer’s assessable profits and allowable deductions.
Held: The resolution of that question depended on the proper accountancy treatment of capitalised interest.
Ribeiro PJ said: ‘The . . preferable, view is that the Ramsay principle does not espouse any specialised principle of statutory construction applicable to tax legislation, whatever its language, but continues to assert the need to apply orthodox methods of purposive interpretation to the facts viewed realistically. In common with Lord Hoffman in MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd [2003] 1 AC 311 . . I am of the view that Lord Brightman’s formulation in not a principle of construction, but, as stated above, a decision that the Court is entitled, for fiscal purposes, to disregard intermediate steps having no commercial purpose as a consequence of an orthodox exercise of purposive statutory construction.’ and ‘Accordingly, the driving principle in the Ramsay line of cases continues to involve a general rule of statutory construction and an unblinkered approach to the analysis of the facts. The ultimate question is whether the relevant statutory provisions, construed purposively, were intended to apply to the transaction, viewed realistically.’
Lord Millett NPJ said: ‘Both profits and losses therefore must be ascertained in accordance with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting as modified to conform with the Ordinance. Where the taxpayer’s financial statements are correctly drawn in accordance with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting and in conformity with the Ordinance, no further modifications are required or permitted. Where the taxpayer may properly draw its financial statements on either of two alternative bases, the Commissioner is both entitled and bound to ascertain the assessable profits on whichever basis the taxpayer has chosen to adopt. He is bound to do so because he has no power to alter the basis on which the taxpayer has drawn its financial statements unless it is inconsistent with a provision of the Ordinance. But he is also entitled to do so, with the result that the taxpayer is effectively bound by its own choice, not because of any estoppel, but because it is the Commissioner’s function to make the assessment and for the taxpayer to show that it is wrong.’ and . .
‘the subject is to be taxed by the legislature and not by the courts’.
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Aug-16
Ref: 220504
References: [2016] UKUT 236 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Costs decision
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 31-Jul-16
Ref: 567340
References: [2010] UKUT 174 (TCC), [2010] BPIR 933, [2010] BTC 1548, [2010] STI 1723, [2010] STC 2020
Links: Bailii
Coram: Warren J P
Ratio: UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in his bankrupty. He now renewed his application to bring judicial review.
Held: He had no standing to bring judiial review proceedings. Warren J approved the aproach suggested in Hurren, that agreement should be sought between the bankrupt and the inspector, with the trustee ensuring that any agreement was proper.
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 07-Jun-16
Ref: 428155
References: [2015] UKUT 416 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Application for judicial review – self-assessment in annual return – claim to relief under Chapter 6 of Part 4 of Income Tax Act 2007 (dealing with share loss relief) – whether such a claim governed by section 42(11A) of, and Schedule 1B, to Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether any enquiry into claim should be under section 9A or under Schedule 1A of Taxes Management Act 2007- whether claim given effect within paragraph 4 of Schedule 1A to Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether judicial review appropriate procedure
Statutes: Income Tax Act 2007, Taxes Management Act 2007
Last Update: 16-Oct-15 Ref: 553186
References: [2011] UKUT B17 (TCC), [2011] BTC 1777
Links: Bailii
UTTC INCOME TAX – late filing penalties – late payment surcharges – reasonable excuse – continuing mental incapacity – TMA 1970 SS 93 and 59C – Appeals allowed
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 93 59C
References: [2013] UKUT B6 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Direction following hearing of 19 July 2013
References: [2013] UKUT 1041 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
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 with a direction for preparation of hearing bundles – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules – rule 2 (overriding objective) – rule 5 (case management powers) – rule 10 (orders for costs)
This case cites:
This case is cited by:
References: [2013] UKUT 105 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC TAX CREDIT – Foreign income dividends – Claim by Trustees of exempt approved pension scheme – FIDS received from UK resident companies – ICTA 1988 s.231 TAX CREDIT – Cross-border dividends – Claims for tax credits based on ECJ decision in Manninen (Case C-319/0)2 – ICTA 1988 s.231 LIMITATIONS – Tax credit claims – Whether out of time – TMA s.43(1)
References: [2009] UKFTT 66 (TC)
Links: Bailii
FTTTx DISCLOSURE – Witness summons – Reference in Revenue witness statement to evidence from unidentified sensitive sources – application for production of such evidence – claim for public interest immunity – order that evidence be produced in redacted form
References: [2012] UKUT 770 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Capital Gains Tax – whether discovery assessments valid – s 29, Taxes Management Act 1970 – meaning of ‘discovery’ – inference of information under s 29(6)(d)(i) – inclusion of DOTAS scheme reference number in return – whether an officer could not have been reasonably expected to be aware of an insufficiency of tax (s 29(5)) – nature of the hypothetical officer
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 29
References: [2011] BTC 1793, [2011] STC 1784, [2011] UKUT 239 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Bishopp J
UTTC INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – TMA s 29 – taxpayer setting capital losses against income – workings sent with return but net figures entered on return – First-tier Tribunal’s finding that taxpayer negligent – whether finding of fact – yes – whether susceptible of challenge in Upper Tribunal – appeal dismissed.
References: [2012] UKUT B13 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC STRIKE OUT – Whether no reasonable prospect of Applicants’ case succeeding – Whether Applicants failed to cooperate such that Tribunal cannot deal with proceedings fairly and justly – Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 rule 8(3)(b) and (c)
References: [2012] UKUT B12 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Colin Bishopp UTJ
Directions order – addition of further interested party
References: [2013] UKUT 481 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Hellier, Gort TJJ
UTTC Ratio Proceeding in the absence of the appellant – appellant providing medical certificate not complying with tribunal’s directions – appellant wishing to delay hearing pending complaints procedure -whether decision of tribunal to go ahead perverse – whether account taken of irrelevant matters. Bias – Porter v MacGill – whether decision of tribunal was such as to give rise to a real possibility of bias by reason of extensive reference to a decision which had been set aside. Decision of FTT set side.
Last Update: 28-Apr-16
Ref: 521017
References: [2014] UKFTT 478 (TC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC PROCEDURE – Information Notices approved by the Tribunal – Paragraph 3 Schedule 3 Finance Act 2008 – application to set aside approval – jurisdiction – whether procedural irregularity – Rules 19, 38 Tribunal Rules – applications refused
Statutes: Finance Act 2008
References: [2014] UKFTT 470 (TC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – failure to file Employer’s End of Year P35 return on time – whether reasonable excuse – yes – appeal allowed
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970
References: [2012] UKUT 174 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Capital gains tax – appeal by taxpayer to First-Tier Tribunal – taxpayer previously a bankrupt – application to strike out appeal – whether taxpayer had locus standi to appeal – whether appeal settled by trustee in bankruptcy in accordance with s. 54 Taxes Management Act 1970.
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 54
References: [2013] UKUT 623 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Newey J
UTTC CAPITAL GAINS TAX – validity of a ‘discovery’ assessment under section 29(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether a ‘discovery’ – whether conditions of section 29(4) and (5) of the Act satisfied
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970
References: [2014] STI 626, [2014] STC 973, [2014] BVC 504, [2014] UKUT 196 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Procedure – Application under Rule 5(3)(a) Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 for extension of time to provide notice of appeal to Upper Tribunal under Rule 23(2)(a) – effect of amendments to CPR 3.9 with effect from 1 April 2013 and Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd – application refused