Category: Taxes Management

Falles Fagligt Forbund v Kingdom Of Denmark: ECJ 24 Jan 2013

ECJ Appeal – State aid – Tax-reduction measures – Seafarers working on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register – Article 88(3) EC – Preliminary examination stage – Commission decision not to raise objections – Action for annulment – Conditions for initiating the formal investigation procedure – Existence of doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid with the common market – Period for the examination

Judges:

E. Jarasiunas, P

Citations:

C-646/11, [2013] EUECJ C-646/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Article 88(3) EC

European, Taxes Management

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470566

Chandanmal and Others (T/A C Narain Bros) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Mar 2012

PROCEDURE – whether case to be stayed pending CJEU decision – whether expert witness to comply with CPR – yes — whether opinion evidence of someone with ‘expertise’ to be admitted – no – exclusion of witness statement containing largely opinion evidence – leave to serve substitute statement

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 188 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.462601

Quarrell Beaumont Quarters Trustees v TPR and FSA: UTTC 17 Aug 2012

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)

Citations:

[2012] UKUT B13 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466692

Globalised Corporation Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Aug 2012

Failure to comply with unless order – application for extension of time to apply for reinstatement of appeal – application refused – application to reinstate appeal after strike out at hearing which Appellant did not attend – application refused

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 556 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466099

Devine v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Jun 2011

Taxes Management Act 1970 – Deposits to accounts in excess of declared CIS income – Discovery assessments raised – Appellant’s failure to provide explanation in relation to excess credits – Assessment upheld as valid – Appeal Dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 404 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.443102

Cascade Amusements v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Apr 2012

PROCEDURE – Appellant’s application to extend time limit for filing notice of appeal – appellant’s explanation for delay considered – prejudice to HMRC considered to be limited in circumstances where assessment made to protect HMRC’s position pending Court of Appeal and Upper Tribunal decisions – permission to extend time limit granted

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 259 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.462653

Higgs Et Al (Edge Group) v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Preliminary Issue – Marketed Tax Avoidance Scheme): FTTTx 24 Feb 2020

PROCEDURE – preliminary issue – marketed tax avoidance scheme – whether the FTT has jurisdiction to determine if HMRC is entitled to exercise discretion under s 684(7A) ITEPA 2003 to disapply PAYE regulations – Regulation 185 PAYE Regulations – Regulation 188 PAYE Regulations – s.23 TMA 1970 – s.59B TMA 1970 – Hoey v HMRC considered – FTT does not have jurisdiction

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 117 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.649163

The Bampton Property Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v King: CA 21 Dec 2012

Public law challenge to the decision-making process of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’). The decision in question was to refuse the appellants, all members of a property investment group of companies, headed by a publicly-listed company called Daejan Holdings plc (‘Daejan’), an extension of time to make claims to offset losses against profits and thereby reduce their tax bill.

Judges:

Rix, Arden, Kitchin LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1744, [2014] STC 56, [2013] STI 257, [2013] BTC 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467625

ITV Plc and Others (Box Clever) v The Pensions Regulator: UTTC 29 Mar 2012

Directions order – addition of further interested party

Judges:

Colin Bishopp UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT B12 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – ITV Plc and Others (Box Clever) v The Pensions Regulator UTTC 17-Jul-2012
Reasons for Direction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466670

Jarvis v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Aug 2012

INCOME TAX – Penalty – Section 93A Taxes Management Act 1970 – late submission of partnership return – appeal submitted by a partner other than the ‘representative partner’ – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeal – whether penalty invokes criminal head of Article 6.1 of European Convention on Human Rights – whether absence of direct right of appeal by the appellant denial of right to fair hearing – whether restrictions on right of appeal mean Tribunal is not a tribunal of ‘full jurisdiction’ for the purposes of the Convention – whether Section 93A can be construed to give effect to Convention rights

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 483 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466105

M Sport Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Her Majestys Revenue and Customs: CA 16 Apr 2021

M Sport Limited appealed against the refusal of the Upper Tribunal to award it the costs of an application for judicial review against a decision of the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs. The application did not proceed to a hearing because, shortly after service of the proceedings, HMRC withdrew the notices which were to be the subject of the judicial review challenge.

Judges:

Lord Justice David Richards

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 561

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.661920

Subway London Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Appeal Had Been Struck Out Under Terms of An Unless Order): FTTTx 13 Sep 2019

PROCEDURE – appeal had been struck out under terms of an Unless Order – new appeal made against same HMRC decision – treated as late application for reinstatement – whether to give permission to make a late application – no – whether to reinstate appeal – no – application dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 579 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.644011

Warwick Durham and Co v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Nov 2012

FTTTx Appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009- whether lack of specific warning was a reasonable excuse – no- whether penalty unreasonable – no-appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 683 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466261

Southwest Communications Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Nov 2012

FTTTx PROCEDURE – COSTS – appeal in standard category – appellant’s application for costs on the basis that HMRC had acted unreasonably in not settling case sooner- period over which costs may be incurred and period over which unreasonable conduct may be assessed considered – whether HMRC acted unreasonably in not settling case before service of appellant’s witness statements – no- whether HMRC acted unreasonably in not considering witness statements sooner – yes – application granted for costs incurred after point in time by which witness statements ought to have been reviewed – application allowed in part

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 701 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466259

Four Colours Print Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Nov 2012

FTTTX Appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – whether the terminal illness of a director who was the sole signatory of the cheques for much of the relevant time and her ultimate death and previous serious eye infection which threatened her sight was a reasonable excuse for the late payment of the PAYE – yes for the first six months of the year- thereafter the appellant ought to have made alternative arrangements- appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 685 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2009 59

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466249

TJS Consulting Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Oct 2012

FTTTx Penalties for late returns – failure of appointed agent – whether reasonable excuse under Schedule 56 Paragraph 16 Finance Act 2009 – No – and whether appellant took reasonable car. No, too long a delay. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Peter R Sheppard

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 665 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2009

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466238

Thane Dispersions Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Sep 2012

FTTTx Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs payments – FA 2009, Sch 56 – Whether a reasonable excuse – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – proportionality – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 595 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466187

Incite Out Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Oct 2012

Appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009– whether lack of a specific warning or knowledge of the penalty regime was a reasonable excuse-no-whether penalty disproportionate or unfair -no-appeal dismissed and penalty confirmed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 680 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466213

Seacourt Developments Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Aug 2012

PAYE – NICs – CIS – assessments and determinations – best judgment – presumption of continuity – whether evidence to displace assessments and determinations
Penalties – PAYE and NICs – s 98A(4) TMA – whether taxpayer negligent in making incorrect returns – mitigation of penalties – Tribunal jurisdiction to increase penalties – s 100B(2)(b)

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 522 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466124

Law Costing Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Apr 2011

Income tax — penalty — section 98A (2) (a) Taxes Management Act 1970 whether employers annual return Form P 35 filed online or test submission — whether reasonable excuse — whether prompt notification of time-based penalty

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 278 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 98A(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.442988

WH Cockerline and Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1930

Counsel had argued about the imposition of a penalty where no assessment had yet been made. Lord Hanworth MR said: ‘In language which was, perhaps, coloured by a warmth of feeling about it, he suggested that it was entirely wrong, and, indeed, made an inroad upon the rights of the subject that there should be any sum ever accepted from the subject in discharge of a liability in respect of which there had not been the assessment, or paper imposing the assessment, served upon him. In my view that argument is unsound. I do not think it is necessary in all cases, in order to enable the Crown to receive money, that there should be an assessment actually served of that sum which is ultimately paid.’

Judges:

Lord Hanworth MR

Citations:

(1930) 16 TC 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Nuttall CA 1990
The Revenue and the taxpayer had agreed that the latter should pay andpound;15,000 in consideration of the Revenue taking no proceedings against him for tax penalties or interest. The taxpayer paid only andpound;5,000 and the Revenue sought summary . .
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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.375138

Jafari v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 5 Mar 2020

Procedure – Permission to Appeal – s.29 TMA 1970 discovery assessment – Grounds of appeal: (1) ‘staleness’ not part of law; (2) Tribunal’s decision unexplained; (3) Finding of ‘staleness’ not reasonably open to Tribunal – Application refused.’

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 134 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.649203

Neiland, etc v Revenue and Customs: LRA 16 Dec 2011

LRA Practice and Procedure (1) Application to appeal direction- treated as applications to vary or review direction-effect of S.79(1) Finance Act 2003- HELD — Application to vary dismissed- direction to continue as amended

Judges:

Abbey DA

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2011 – 0186

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2003 79(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Taxes Management

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465876

Adelekun v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Profits): FTTTx 4 Oct 2019

INCOME TAX – enquiry – absence of any accounting records – appellant’s evidence on amount of trading income and expenditure not credible – appeal dismissed – s28A Taxes Management Act 1970

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 613 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 28A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.644018

Wilsons Solicitors Llp v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 22 Oct 2018

INFORMATION NOTICE UNDER FA 2011 TO RELEVANT DATA HOLDER -whether solicitors’ partnership a relevant data holder because of obligations under the money laundering regulations to keep records – no – whether such records are relevant data – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 627 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.632378

X v Staatssecretaris Van Financien: ECJ 18 Oct 2012

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Fiscal legislation – Obligation on the recipient of a service, established in the national territory, to withhold at source the wages tax on the remuneration due to a service provider established in another Member State – No such obligation in respect of a service provider established in the same Member State

Citations:

C-498/10, [2012] EUECJ C-498/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – X v Staatssecretaris Van Financien ECJ 21-Dec-2011
Opinion – Freedom to provide services – Obligation on the resident recipient of a service to withhold tax at source from remuneration if the service provider is resident in another Member State – Discrimination – Restriction – Grounds of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Taxes Management

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465024

Padmore v Inland Revenue Commissioners (No 2): ChD 8 Feb 2001

The taxpayer sought double taxation relief in respect of partnership profits earned in Jersey. Two sections appeared to be in direct contradiction. The earlier section had been superceded by the 1988 Act which was a consolidating Act. Consolidating legislation was intended to be read without reference to earlier legislation wherever possible save only in the case of ambiguity or obscure or absurd. The general rule in favour of double taxation agreements was here subordinated to a rule in 62.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Feb-2001, Times 21-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.84531

De Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 15 Nov 2017

The appellants had entered into certain partnerships designed to mitigate liability too income tax by creating trading losses through investments in films. HMRC rejected the claims. HMRC then sought to backdate adjustments to the carry-back claims involved. The tax payers now appealed from findings that the adjustments were not outside the statutory time limit, saying that their claims for relief by carrying back losses are not claims made in their self-assessment tax returns under section 8 of the TMA but are to be regarded as ‘stand-alone’ claims for relief which are not made in tax returns and which HMRC could challenge only under Schedule 1A to the TMA.
Held: The appeal failed. By s 8 TMA the taxpayer having been given a notice to file a return must give the information needed to show the amount for which he was chargeable to income tax, including any share of partnership income or losses for the period which fell within the year of assessment. If he wanted to carry back any part of his later partnership losses to set off against his liability to income tax for an earlier year, he must make that claim in his return for the later year. The revenue may use 9A, to inquire into anything contained in the return, or which should have been contained in the return, and could therefore inquire into the taxpayer’s carry back claims contained in the later tax returns and the Revenue did not have to start an inquiry under Schedule 1A in order to challenge those claims.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 74, [2017] 1 WLR 4384, [2017] WLR(D) 760, UKSC 2016/0053

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary video, SC 2017 Jun 22 am Video, SC 2017 Jun 22 pm Video

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 12AC(1), Finance (No 2) Act 1992 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At UTTC – De Silva and Another v Revenue and Customs UTTC 15-Apr-2014
Film partnerships – partnership trading losses – inclusion of trading losses in partners’ self-assessment tax returns – claims to utilise those losses for carry back relief- means of challenge available to HMRC . .
Appeal from – De Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 2-Feb-2016
. .
Cited – Cotter v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Nov-2013
This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.599380

Derrin Brother Properties Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others: Admn 15 Apr 2014

Challenge to the use by the Revenue and Customs of investigatory powers requiring disclosure of documents by notice by a number of Banks and a firm of Accountants relating to their clients’ affairs, following a request made by the Australian Tax Office for assistance in accordance with the exchange of information procedure under Article 27 of the Double Tax Convention between Australia and the UK.

Judges:

Simler DBE J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1152 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.523753

British Steel Plc v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Customs and Excise: CA 20 Dec 1996

The claimant company paid excise duty on hydrocarbon oil used in its blast furnaces, whilst consistently contending that it was entitled to relief under section 9(1) of that Act on the ground that the oil was not used as fuel. The Commissioners rejected that contention. The claimant brought an action against the Commissioners claiming restitution of the excise duty which it had paid on the basis that it qualified for relief, and that the Commissioners’ demands for payment of the duty had accordingly been unlawful.
Held: ‘So there are, in my opinion, two points for decision on this appeal. First, if relief from duty under section 9(1) was unlawfully refused, does it follow that the demands for duty under section 6 were unlawful? Second, if the demands for duty were unlawful, can a common law action for restitution be brought or is the payer restricted to such repayment remedy as may be available under section 9(4)?’ and ‘If the demands by the commissioners for excise duty to be paid on the hydrocarbon oil to be delivered to British Steel’s blast furnaces were unlawful demands, it would follow, in my opinion, from the decision of the House of Lords in [Woolwich] that whoever paid the duty would have a common law restitutionary right to repayment. . . In the present case, it is contended that the commissioners’ demand for excise duties was unlawful because the commissioners had made an error in deciding that the use of the oil in the British Steel blast furnaces was not a ‘qualifying use’ and, consequently, had wrongly refused to grant relief from duty under s 9(1). I have yet to examine whether that premise justifies a conclusion that the demands were unlawful; but, if it does, I can see no reason why the principle expressed by Lord Goff should not apply. . . An unlawful demand for duty must, in a sense, always be an ultra vires demand. Whether the demand is based on ultra vires regulations, or on a mistaken view of the legal effect of valid regulations, or on a mistaken view of the facts of the case, it will, as it seems to me, be bound to be a demand outside the taxing power conferred by the empowering legislation. If, for any of these reasons, a demand for tax is an unlawful demand, it seems to me to follow from the speeches of the majority in [Woolwich] that the taxpayer would, prima facie, become entitled, on making payment pursuant to the unlawful demand, to a common law restitutionary right to repayment. The empowering legislation in question, or other legislation, might remove the taxpayer’s common law right to repayment. That would depend on the construction of the Act or Acts in question. . . In the present case, if the demands for excise duty were unlawful, the payer would, in my judgment, have a prima facie common law right to repayment. . . I would not construe s 9(4) as removing that common law right. First, the common law right is not expressly removed. Second, s 9(4) does not purport to constitute a comprehensive statutory scheme for recovery of excise duty paid but not due. If duty were demanded and paid on oil that did not correspond to the description of ‘hydrocarbon oil’ in ss 1 and 2, s 9(4) would not enable recovery to be claimed. The common law claim would be the appropriate means of redress. If prospective relief under s 9(1) had been granted but, unlawfully, duty had none the less been demanded and, perforce, paid, s 9(4) would not apply. The common law claim for restitution would be the means of redress. Third, s 9(4) assumes, implicitly, that the excise duty has been paid pursuant to a lawful demand. It is expressed to deal with a situation in which prospective relief could have been given under s 9(1) but, for some reason or other, has not been given. Prima facie, if prospective relief has not been given under s 9(1), duty will have been properly demanded under s 6. . . . For these reasons, if British Steel has an arguable case that the demands for payment of excise duty were unlawful demands, I would not be willing to strike out its action on the ground that s 9(4) had removed the common law right of recovery.’
Millett LJ: ‘What the appellants have done is to seek to obtain retrospective relief by bringing private law proceedings in restitution to recover duty unlawfully demanded of them by a public authority. They can do this if (i) the demand for payment of the duty was unlawful and (ii) the private law remedy is not excluded by the statutory regime: see [Woolwich]. They have no difficulty with the second of these requirements: the statutory regime established by s 9(1) and (4) is not comprehensive; it is limited to persons who possessed the necessary approval at the relevant time, and the appellants did not. But while this enables the appellants to satisfy the second requirement, it creates an insuperable obstacle in the shape of the first. The commissioners’ demand for duty was not unlawful: they were authorised to demand the duty by the combined effect of s 6 of the 1979 Act and s 43(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Section 9(1) of the former Act authorised them to permit the release of oil from bond to an approved person, but they had no power to permit its release to the appellants, even if they were intending to put it to an intended use, unless they could show that they had been approved.’

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott VC, Saville LJ, Millett LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1272, [1997] 2 All ER 366

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Inland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141140

Shenstone, White, White v Revenue and Customs (Whether To Give Permission for Late Appeal v Late Filing Penalties): FTTTx 18 Sep 2019

PROCEDURE – whether to give permission for late appeal against late filing penalties to be made to HMRC – HMRC had informed one of the taxpayers that no appeal could be made until returns filed – permission given

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 595 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.644010

Backhouse v HM Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office: CA 20 Jul 2012

Appeal against a judgment ordering the appellant to pay to HM Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office (‘RCPO’) the sum of andpound;268,039. The basis for the order was that Mr Craig Johnson had made a tainted gift to the appellant when he abandoned his valuable interest in a Cessna Citation II 550 aircraft.

Judges:

Pill, Aikens, Kitchin LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.463074

Stewart v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late Employer’s P35 End of Year Return – Appellant says had difficulty obtaining on-line activation PIN from HMRC – whether reasonable excuse shown for period of default – whether affected by delay in penalties imposed by HMRC – no

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 393 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462820

Heavy Woollen Branch Club and Institute Union Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

Penalty – Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late Employer’s P35 End of Year Return – Appellant thought Return had been filed on-line – further delays despite reminders – no reasonable excuse

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 391 (TC), [2012] UKFTT 391 (TC)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462802

Coast Telecom Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Apr 2012

Procedure – application for stay pending determination of references to CJEU – whether First-tier Tribunal bound by Mobilx – yes – whether determination of references would materially assist determination of appeal – no – whether expedient to order a stay – no – tribunal required to find facts – whether Uk observations on referred cases should be disclosed – no – whether questions should be referred to the CJEU – no – applications dismissed

Judges:

Berner TJ

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 307 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Binding – Mobilx Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same and similar CA 12-May-2010
Each company sought repayment of input VAT. HMRC refused, saying that the transactions were the end-product of a fraud on it, and that even if the taxpayer did not know that a fraud was involved, it should have been aware that one was and acted . .
Applied – HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others CA 22-May-1974
Necessity for Reference to ECJ
Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, European

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462655

Clarke and Co v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 May 2012

FTTTX Money Laundering Regulations 2007- penalty for practising as an external accountant or tax adviser without being registered – whether HMRC took reasonable steps to advertise maintenance of register – whether appellant had taken all reasonable steps to comply – whether penalty appropriate

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 300 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462730

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.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 183 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462621

Fawcett (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax Acts and Lancaster Farmers Auction Mart Company Limited: CA 4 Dec 1996

Auctioneers were required to report their trading returns to the Inland Revenue so as to show the income of the sellers.

Citations:

Times 27-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1093

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140960

West v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Income Tax – Unauthorised Payments – Pension Schemes): FTTTx 25 Sep 2019

INCOME TAX – Sections 160 and 208 Finance Act 2004 – Unauthorised Payments – Pension Schemes – Pensions Liberation scheme – Discovery – Section 29 Taxes and Management Act 1970 – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 602 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.644017

The Best Connection Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Application for Preliminary Hearing): FTTTx 26 Sep 2019

PROCEDURE – Application for preliminary hearing – Scope of hearing – Which issues suitable for determination – Wrottesley v HMRC applied – Application allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 604 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.643990

Matharu v Revenue and Customs (Schedule 36 Notice – Company Statements Show Large Cash Movements): FTTTx 12 Aug 2019

Schedule 36 Notice – company statements show large cash movements between company and personal bank accounts – company wages exceed director’s P60 and dividends – grounds for reason to suspect – Notice to produce all private bank and/or building society accounts – Betts [2013] TC 02824 distinguished – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 528 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.641337

EDF Tax Ltd (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) v Revenue and Customs (Tax Avoidance – Application for Declaration Delta Arrangements): FTTTx 20 Sep 2019

TAX AVOIDANCE – application for declaration Delta arrangements were notifiable arrangements under DOTAS – consideration of facts – application ALLOWED

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 598 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.643994

Moore v Revenue and Customs (Application To Strike Out Appeal : Succeeded): FTTTx 12 Aug 2019

Application to strike out appeal against revenue determination.
Held: application succeeded as revenue determination not an appealable decision. Application for permission to appeal out of time.
Held: delay was serious and significant, no good reason provided and balance of prejudice lay with HMRC- therefore permission refused.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 527 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.641341

Harrison News Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Apr 2011

Appeal against Regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 determinations and Section 8 Social Contributions (Transfer of Functions) Act 1999 decisions-Appellant appealed on basis that HMRC had not provided an adequate breakdown of the amounts assessed appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 251 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 80, Social Contributions (Transfer of Functions) Act 1999 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.442986

Cartref Care Home Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’S Revenue and Customs: Admn 13 Dec 2019

‘rolled up’ hearing for permission and substantive application is one which raises (inter alia) a question of Human Rights Act law in the context of a taxation issue.

Judges:

Cockerill J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3382 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Taxes Management

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.648133

Executors of Mrs R W Levy v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Application for Final or Partial Closure Notice): FTTTx 26 Jun 2019

PROCEDURE – application for final or partial closure notice – nature of tribunal’s jurisdiction – whether reasonable grounds for not giving a final closure notice – yes – whether power to direct a partial closure notice in respect of domicile where tax unknown – no – appeal against information notice – whether information reasonably required for enquiry – yes

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 418 (TC), [2019] STI 1365, [2019] SFTD 1045

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.641240

Atholl House Productions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 11 Apr 2019

INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE D intermediaries legislation D IR35 D personal service company D if the contracts in question had been directly between the end user and the individual, would they have been contracts of employment D no D appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 242 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.637834

Sutherland and Others v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes): CA 28 Feb 1994

One of several partners may appeal against the firm’s tax assessment without his partners’ approval.

Citations:

Ind Summary 28-Feb-1994, Gazette 13-Apr-1994, Times 04-Mar-1994

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 31 56

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Sutherland and Others v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 17-May-1993
One partner may not appeal against an assessment to tax against the wishes of his or her partners. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89627

Ground Force Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure – Whether Appeal To Be Accepted Out of Time): FTTTx 25 Apr 2019

PROCEDURE – whether appeal to be accepted out of time – yes CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – failure to implement notification of tax treatment change – determination issued – penalty imposed – whether appeal out of time – no – whether reasonable care taken – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 274 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.637843

Asiana Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure – Application To Amend Grounds of Appeal Five Years After A Previous Application To Amend Refused): FTTTx 24 Apr 2019

PROCEDURE – application to amend grounds of appeal five years after a previous application to amend refused and after hearing of preliminary issue called on basis that it had potential to resolve the dispute – no good reason given for delay- new ground of appeal has only weak prospects of resulting in no liability to duty – appeals should be conducted proportionately – application REFUSED

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 267 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.637833

Valoris (Principles of EU Law – Principle of Sincere Cooperation – Recovery of Taxes Levied By A Member State In Breach of EU Law – Judgment): ECJ 14 Oct 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principles of EU law – Principle of sincere cooperation – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law – Time limit for lodging applications for reimbursement of such taxes – No similar time limit for the reimbursement of sums levied by that Member State in breach of national law

Citations:

C-677/19, [2020] EUECJ C-677/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.660630

Halls v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Construction Industry Scheme): FTTTx 1 Aug 2019

Construction Industry Scheme – penalties for late filing of CIS returns – whether proportionality of penalties in comparison to the amount of tax due amounted to special circumstances – para 16 Sch 55 FA 2009 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 499 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641322

Awolesi v Revenue and Customs (Penalties – Whether To Give Permission for Late Appeal To Be Made To HMRC): FTTTx 29 Aug 2019

PENALTIES – whether to give permission for late appeal to be made to HMRC – whether late filing penalties validly assessed by HMRC – taxpayer denies receiving penalty notices – permission given – evidence adduced by HMRC insufficient to satisfy burden of proof that penalty notices sent – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 551 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641308

Staysure.Co.Uk Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : HMRC Application for Clarification of Disclosure Directions): FTTTx 9 Aug 2019

PROCEDURE – HMRC application for clarification of disclosure directions – Whether compliance with disclosure directions – Whether ‘unless direction’ appropriate – Appellant’s application for extension of time to file and serve witness statements

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 524 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641356

Florida Foods Ltd (T/A Subway) v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Whether Valid Appeal Made To The Tribunal): FTTTx 25 Jul 2019

PROCEDURE – whether valid appeal made to the Tribunal – ss 83C, 83F and 83G Value Added Tax Act 1994 – yes – whether to reinstate proceedings following earlier strike-out under rule 8(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – no

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 477 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641271

Abrams v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Application for Appeals To Be Stayed Indefinitely): FTTTx 27 Jul 2019

Procedure – Application for appeals to be stayed indefinitely – loss of evidence due to effluxion of time – Whether ‘fair’ hearing possible – Yes – Application dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 485 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641254

Kantopoulos v Revenue and Customs No 2 (Income Tax – Discovery Assessments): FTTTx 19 Jul 2019

INCOME TAX – discovery assessments – Taxes Management Act 1970 ss. 9A, 12B, 28A, 29, 34, 36 – onus of proof – whether discovery ‘stale’ – whether the condition under s 29(4) met for the ordinary time limit to be extended – income returned on an accruals basis – quantum of insufficiency varied for a timing difference – Finance Act 2007 Schedule 24 – penalty to be varied in line with quantum of insufficiency – amounts of assessment and penalty otherwise confirmed in full – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 470 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641284

Haworth and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 28 Feb 2019

PROCEDURE – Costs applications – Complex Category – Additional issue raised and withdrawn in respect of appellant that has ‘opted out’ of costs regime – Whether ‘unreasonable’ conduct by respondents – No – Other applications not pursued – Whether costs Order appropriate at this stage – No – Costs in case/no order for costs

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 149 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.635701

Tahmosybayat v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 31 Oct 2018

Procedure – scope of Tribunal’s jurisdiction – whether an appealable decision – no – whether the Tribunal could revisit a previous FTT decision – no – whether a section 54 TMA agreement can be re-opened – no – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider statutory interest – no – application for strike-out granted

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 644 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632369

Mr E and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 9 Oct 2018

INFORMATION NOTICE – whether following Jimenez the Tribunal has power to order an inter partes determination of HMRC’s application for approval of a third party information notice – no – Derrin is to be preferred – applications dismissed.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 590 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632357