Category: Taxes Management

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

Revenue and Customs v A Taxpayer (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 10 Sep 2018

PROCEDURE – Application for approval of third party notice under Schedule 36 of Finance Act 2008 – scope of exclusion for auditors’ working papers in paragraph 24 and 26 of Schedule 36 where auditor also assisting in preparation of tax returns – application refused.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 541 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632318

Addo v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 3 Sep 2018

Application for specific disclosure of documents – exercise of discretion to require disclosure – rules 5(3), 16 and 27(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – application granted in part

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 492 (TC), [2018] STI 1882, [2019] SFTD 168

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632286

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v DFS Furniture Company Plc: CA 6 Dec 2002

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Mummery

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1708, [2003] STC 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.178458

Embiricos v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Application for A Direction Requiring HMRC To Issue A Partial Closure Notice): FTTTx 9 Apr 2019

PROCEDURE – application for a direction requiring HMRC to issue a partial closure notice – whether partial closure notice can be issued in relation to a taxpayer’s domicile/remittance basis claim without specifying the amount of tax due – s 28A Taxes Management Act 1970 – taxpayer information notice – paragraph 1 of schedule 36 to Finance Act 2008 – whether information reasonably required to check the taxpayer’s tax position prior to determination of the taxpayer’s domicile

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 236 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.637840

Collado v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Self Assessment – Penalty): FTTTx 22 Nov 2018

INCOME TAX – self assessment – whether the Notice to File issued to the Appellant was issued under Section 8 of Taxes Management Act 1970 – yes – whether the Appellant’s tax return was filed late – yes – whether this late filing rendered the Appellant liable to a penalty imposed under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 55 to Finance Act 2009 – yes – whether the amount of the penalty under Paragraph 3 is fixed or HMRC are required to consider the circumstances of each taxpayer to assess the penalty individually – the amount is specified by Paragraph 3 – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for her delay in filing her return – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 687 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632386

The Vaccine Researcher Ltd Partnership and Another v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 10 Oct 2018

PROCEDURE – Tribunal releasing ‘decision in principle’ in relation to 2006-07 tax year -construction of closure notice – whether appellants can now make arguments on status of licence fee income in 2006-7 – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such arguments – yes – application allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 597 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632374

Universal Cycles Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 28 Sep 2018

PROCEDURE – appeals against decisions/ C18 Notices in respect of anti-dumping duty/customs duty/VAT – application for disclosure of documents and information – application allowed in part – application for stay of proceedings pending the outcome of another case – stay granted

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 564 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632324

Libby’s Market Place Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 28 Sep 2018

PROCEDURE – Appeal withdrawn – Late application for reinstatement – Whether power to reinstate under rule 17 Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 precluded by s 85(4) Value Added Tax Act 1994 – Yes – OWD Ltd (t/a Birmingham Cash and Carry) v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 497 (TC) applied

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 563 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632310

Burrows (Insurance Brokers) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Dec 2011

FTTTx PAYE and NIC – annual employer’s return (P35/P14) for 2009-10 – Appellants ceased to trade in May 2009 – did not submit employer’s year end return, not realising one was required – only realised when received first penalty for andpound;400 – wrote to HMRC asking for paper P35 if one still needed to be filed – no reply from HMRC – when HMRC sought to collect penalties, Appellant contacted HMRC to be told return should be filed – held no reasonable excuse for period of delay up to receipt of first penalty notice, but reasonable excuse thereafter – penalty therefore reduced from andpound;800 to andpound;500, which was ‘harsh but not plainly unfair’ – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 851 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.450889

AST Systems Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Dec 2011

PAYE and NIC – late employer’s annual return (P35/P14) for 2009-10 – simple oversight – held no reasonable excuse – penalty of pounds 500 found to be disproportionate in the circumstances – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 802 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.450885

Sekhri v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Nov 2011

PENALTY for late filing of personal income tax returns – whether a reasonable excuse had been shown for the late filing – Appellant suffering ill-health – medical evidence relating to periods after the due dates for filing the returns – No reasonable excuse found – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 747 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.450878

JK v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Application for Anonymity – Mental Health Issues): FTTTx 27 Jun 2019

PROCEDURE – application for anonymity – mental health issues – risk of reputational damage – application REFUSED – this decision anonymised to give appellant choice whether to proceed with appeal and/or seek permission to appeal this decision

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 411 (TC), [2019] SFTD 1094, [2019] STI 1319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.641245

Ticket Arena Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Application To Strike Out Appeal – Case That Card Handling Fees Are Exempt): FTTTx 31 May 2019

APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT APPEAL- case that card handling fees are exempt has no reasonable prospect of success in light of CJEU’s decision in Bookit – case that assessments out of time allowed to proceed but only on basis its that its case (both legal and factual) that HMRC acted unreasonably in not making a different assessment earlier was not shown to be not fit for trial – application allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 348 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.638517

Shah and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Application for Costs): FTTTx 11 Feb 2019

APPLICATION FOR COSTS – standard case – no wasted costs – no unreasonable behaviour – Rule 10(1), Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – application dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 90 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.635722

Bilkus and Boyle Solicitors v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Oct 2018

Procedure – appeal struck out for failure to comply with an Unless Order – application to reinstate appeal out of time – whether extension of time – Rule 5(3) of the Tribunal Rules 2009 – use of judicial discretion – Martland followed – Pierhead considered – principle of legal certainty – application refused

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 571 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.632333

Symbiosis Imedia Systems Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 16 Feb 2019

Application to set aside direction refusing to admit new grounds of appeal – procedural error did not give rise to injustice as new ground of appeal does not have reasonable prospect of success – application dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 124 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.635729

Humphries v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Costs): FTTTx 8 Feb 2019

COSTS – claim by litigant in person for time spent waiting for, and chasing up, payment of the amount due to her on settlement of her appeal – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction – no – whether tribunal would order costs if it could – no – because HMRC has already offered compensation

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 88 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.635703

Pollard v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2010

FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – ‘Compliance test’ – Whether there was a reasonable excuse – No – Appeal dismissed – section 66 and schedule 11 Finance Act 2004 – Regulation 32 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 269 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2004 66 Sch 11, Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Construction

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.422282

Worldpay (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Apr 2019

Procedure : Application for Disclosure – whether documents relevant to issue in appeal – what has been pleaded – equivocal pleading -matter in issue when raised by appellant and not accepted by HMRC – application allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 235 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.637880

Application – Customers With UK Addresses Holding Non-UK Accounts (196): FTTTx 17 Jun 2009

Application for permission to appeal out of time – Whether reasonable excuse – No – Whether any other reasons to allow late appeal – No -Application dismissed – s 49 Taxes Management Act 1970

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 196 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.408991

Ductaire Fabrication Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Dec 2009

Construction Industry Scheme – Refusal to grant gross payment status – Whether compliance test has been met – Whether reasonable excuse for the failure to comply and whether there is reason to expect future compliance

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 350 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.409143

Vela Fishing Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue: PC 14 Apr 2003

PC (New Zealand) The case concerned statutes which had codified earlier law, and whether a waiver under one Act was operative also under the other. The tax system would issue an initial assessment, and a later detailed assessment. The taxpayers representative signed a waiver allowing the later assessment to be delayed, but the company now challenged the validity and effect of the waiver.
Held: The acts were properly considered as both consolidating and amending acts. As such they should not be construed artificially to accord with previous practice, and the waiver was valid.

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Nolan, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2003] UKPC 32, Times 06-May-2003, [2003] STI 886, [2003] STC 732

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.181033

R D Utilities Ltd v Revenue and Customs (303): FTTTx 25 Mar 2014

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 – Appeal by Taxpayer against Information Notice – should Information Notice be confirmed? – No – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 303 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – R A Drinks Ltd v Revenue and Customs 304 FTTTx 25-Mar-2014
Procedure – costs – application made for payment of costs in connection with appeal where HMRC had withdrawn the disputed decision shortly after notification of the appeal – original application deficient by failing to include schedule of costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.525295

HMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd: UTTC 6 Feb 2012

UTTC COSTS – Transitional appeal – Appeal by HMRC against direction under Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009, Sch 3, para 7 for 1986 applying 2009 Rules to the proceedings – appeal dismissed
The policy that ‘in cases other than Complex cases . . the inability to recover costs is not seen as likely to lead to a denial of access to justice’ but that ‘in Complex cases, the choice of the taxpayer is to prevail’.

Judges:

Warren J

Citations:

[2012] BVC 1577, [2012] UKUT 45 (TCC), [2012] STC 931

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTx – Atlantic Electronics Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 12-May-2011
CASE MANAGEMENT – Exclusion of evidence and admission of late evidence – Principles applicable – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 WLR 1038, HL applied – Need for balancing exercise . .

Cited by:

Cited – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal.
Held: With one exception, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452889

Attorney-General for Ireland v Jameson: CA 1905

The court was asked as to the valuation of shares. The shares were subject to restrictions on transfer.
Held: The price which the shares would fetch if sold on the open market should reflect the terms on which the purchaser would be entitled to be registered.
Holmes LJ said: ‘The Attorney-General and the defendants agree in saying that in this case there cannot be an actual sale in open market. Therefore, argues the former, we must assume that there is no restriction of any kind on the disposition of the shares and estimate that (sic) would be given therefore by a purchaser who upon registration would have complete control over them. My objection to this mode of ascertaining the value is that the property bought in the imaginary sale would be a different property from that which Henry Jameson held at the time of his death. The defendants, on the other hand, contend that the only sale possible is a sale at which the highest price would be 100 pounds per share, and that this ought to be estimated value. My objection is that this estimate is not based on a sale in open market as required by the Act. Being unable to accept either solution, I go back to my own, which is in strict accordance with the language of the section. I assume that there is such a sale of the shares as is contemplated by article 11, the effect of which would be to place the purchaser in the same position as that occupied by Henry Jameson.’
Fitzgibbon LJ said: ‘The price was to be that which a purchaser would pay for the right ‘to stand in Henry Jameson’s shoes,’ with good title to get into them and remain in them, and receive all the profits, subject to all the liabilities, of the position. The price was what the shares were worth to Henry Jameson.’

Judges:

Holmes, Fitzgibbon LJJ

Citations:

[1905] 2 IR 218

Statutes:

Finance Act 1894

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Grays Timber Products Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 3-Feb-2010
An assessment to income tax had been raised after the employee resold shares in the company issued through the employees’ share scheme at a price which the Revenue said was above the share value. The company appealed against a finding that tax was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.396596

Dent (T/A Tony’s Meats) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Feb 2012

FTTTx Section 98A(2) TMA 1970 – penalties for late Employer’s End of Year Return – cessation of Appellant’s business – HMRC did not impose penalties until after cessation – whether reasonable excuse – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 139 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 98A(2)

Taxes Management

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451958

The Bampton Property Group Ltd and Others v Crowe Corporate Capital Ltd and Others: Admn 24 Feb 2012

‘This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the defendant, an officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, refusing to allow the claimants’ late claims to group tax relief. There are four grounds of challenge based on a lack of sufficient reasons in the decision letter, legitimate expectation, criticisms of the decision making methodology in the form of irrelevant considerations, and irrationality.’

Judges:

Blair J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 361 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Taxes Management

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451497

Midshire Decor Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Feb 2012

FTTTx Late filing of End of Year return by employer; penalties; s.98A (2) and (3) TMA; difficulty with online filing; ‘reasonable excuse’ under s.118(2) TMA not found; no notice of penalty until 8 months after the filing date; reduction in penalty allowed.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 115 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Taxes Management

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451981

RA and JC Atkinson Ltd (T/A Minster Cleaning Services) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Feb 2012

FTTTx Penalties for late payment of PAYE and NIC – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – eleven late payments – penalties levied at 4% where more than ten late payment failures -Appellant unaware of progressive nature of penalty regime and disputed number of late payments.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 140 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Taxes Management

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451985

Wright v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Aug 2009

Procedure – Income tax and contributions – Application to set aside decision after hearing in London in Appellant’s absence – Failure by HMRC to comply with management directions – Interests of justice – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, r.38 – Decision set aside

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 227 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409041

J v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (GRB) (Retirement Pensions): UTAA 7 Jan 2021

The First-tier Tribunal is required by regulation 38A of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 to refer to the Secretary of State appeals in which there appear to arise certain issues relating to National Insurance Contributions, for onward referral to HMRC. The referral duty extends beyond cases in which a contributor argues that HMRC mistakenly calculated his/her contributions record to include certain cases in which HMRC might exercise a statutory discretion to relax the usual rules about time limits for paying N.I. contributions.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 21 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.659497

Mccabe v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Oct 2020

PROCEDURE – HMRC’s application to withdraw Statement of Agreed Issues – Appellant’s application for directions including for further and better particulars – HMRC’s application allowed and the Appellant’s application refused – directions issued – Tibbles considered

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 428 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.656830

Irimie v Administratia Finantelor Publice Sibiu And Administratia Fondului Pentru Mediu: ECJ 18 Apr 2013

Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law – National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax – Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax – Non-compliance with European Union law – Principle of effectiveness

Citations:

[2013] EUECJ C-565/11, C-565/11, [2013] STC 1321, [2013] EUECJ C-565/11, EU:C:2013:250, [2013] BVC 174, ECLI:EU:C:2013:250, [2013] STI 1712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Irimie v Administratia Finantelor Publice Sibiu And Administratia Fondului Pentru Mediu ECJ 13-Dec-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State contrary to European Union law – National legislation limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax – Principles of equivalence, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.646127

Wright v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Dec 2011

FTTTx PROCEDURE – whether the Tribunal should hear proceed with the hearing of the appeal – rule 33 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – decision reserved at the hearing but the appeal heard on a provisional basis – reserved decision that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing
INCOME TAX and NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – whether workers engaged by the Appellant were employees (for income tax purposes) and employed earners (for NICs purposes) – whether the Appellant had sufficient day-to-day control over the workers to make them his employees – held on the evidence that he had such control and that the workers were employees of the Appellant – appeal dismissed

Judges:

John Walters QC

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 824 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450966

HM Revenue and Customs v Cotter: CA 8 Feb 2012

Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue said they would investigate but pursued the tax it said was due in full based upon the return submitted.
Held: The appeal succeeded. If the Revenue wished to dispute an item contained in a tax return it had to follow the procedure set out in section 9A of the 1970 Act. That would have given Mr Cotter a right to appeal to the tribunal: ‘The dispute boils down to the correct procedure for the Revenue to use. The Revenue contends that the relief could not be claimed against income or gains for the year of assessment. Therefore it was bound to use the separate procedure for contesting loss relief claims made otherwise than in returns. The appellant contends that the Revenue should have followed the procedure for disputing items contained in a return under section 9A of the Taxes Management Act 1970.’

Judges:

Arden, Richards, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 81

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 9A, Income Tax Act 2007 128

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Blackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling CA 21-Aug-2003
The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and . .
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Appeal From – Revenue and Customs v Cotter ChD 14-Apr-2011
The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due . .
Cited – Langham (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Veltema CA 26-Feb-2004
The tax inspector had sought to re-open a tax assessment outside the time limit provided. He had discovered that a house had been given to the tax payer by his employers. The taxpayer said this had been discoverable from his self-assessment tax . .

Cited by:

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.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450975

Twinn v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Jan 2012

FTTTx Self-assessment late filing penalty – taxpayer submitted return before deadline but without capital gains tax pages – return sent back by HMRC – return resubmitted, again without capital gains pages – return filed late – no reasonable excuse – penalty upheld.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 67 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450842

Norton (T/A Oracle Fieldwork) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Jan 2012

FTTTx Section 93A (2) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late filing of partnership return – Appellant’s agent said no paper return or UTR number issued therefore unable to submit paper or online return – reasonable excuse shown – appeal allowed.

Judges:

Connell TJ

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 9 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 93A(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450821

The Research and Development Partnership Ltd v The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Nov 2009

Penalty – Failure to provide information and documents – reliance on accountant to provide information and documents – Whether reasonable excuse – Yes – Appeal allowed – Paragraph 29 schedule 18 Finance Act 1998

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 328 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409123

Revenue and Customs v White Collar Financial Ltd: FTTTx 16 Mar 2020

DOTAS – Application for order that certain arrangements are notifiable (or alternatively that they are to be treated as notifiable) – sections 306A and 314A Finance Act 2004 – whether arrangements ‘notifiable arrangements’ – yes – application approved

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 459 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.656824

Irimie v Administratia Finantelor Publice Sibiu And Administratia Fondului Pentru Mediu: ECJ 13 Dec 2012

ECJ (Opinion) Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State contrary to European Union law – National legislation limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax – Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality
A Romanian law which provided that interest on unlawfully levied tax, which had to be repaid, ran only from the date of the claim for repayment and not from the date when the tax had been paid.
Held: The temporal limitation on the accrual of interest did not meet the requirements of the court’s ruling in Littlewoods that the calculation of interest should not lead to depriving the taxpayer of adequate compensation for the loss sustained through the undue payment of tax.

Judges:

Wathelet AG

Citations:

C-565/11, [2012] EUECJ C-565/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Irimie v Administratia Finantelor Publice Sibiu And Administratia Fondului Pentru Mediu ECJ 18-Apr-2013
Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law – National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax – Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.468779

RCI Europe Ltd v Kate Woods (HM Inspector of Taxes): ChD 16 Dec 2003

The company made payments to a former director in return for a severance agreement which restricted his future business activities.
Held: Despite the fact that all payments were made only after his employment had been terminated, they remained subject to payment of National Insurance contributions. ‘the required connection to trigger application of TA section 313 of office or employment with a present, past or future holding embraces a real connection with the termination of such holding or employment. ‘

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2004, [2003] EWHC 3129 (Ch), [2004] STC 315, [2004] STI 45

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 4(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Beak v Robson HL 1942
The issue was whether a payment to an employee in return for a restrictive covenant escaped tax. The obligations flowing from the contract of service and the remuneration to be received by the Respondent in respect of that service were entirely . .
Cited – Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Lactagol 1954
A company, at the relevant time director controlled, made a payment to its managing director in consideration for his undertaking not to compete with the company within five years of the date when he would leave its service.
Held: The . .
Cited – Vaughan-Neil v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 1979
All that is required for a severance payment to be taxable is that there is a ‘connection’ between the actual, prospective or past holding of the employment and the giving of the undertaking. . .
Cited – Cartlidge v Chief Adjudication Officer CA 1986
The section refers to ‘an employed earner who has lost employment as an employed earner by reason of a stoppage of work . .’ An employed earner can ‘lose his employment’ temporarily or permanently. . .
Cited – Bray v Best HL 1989
There was not necessarily subsumed in the concession that a payment constituted an emolument from employment a conclusion that the payment must therefore be for a chargeable period within the aggregate period during which the employment subsisted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.188914

Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA (No 2): ECJ 9 Mar 1978

ECJ The Court of Justice considered a reference for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to article 1977 of the Treaty, as having been validly brought before it so long as the reference has not been withdrawn by the court from which it emanates or has not been quashed on appeal by a superior court.
The direct applicability of community law means that its rules must be fully and uniformly applied in all the member states from the date of their entry into force and for so long as they continue in force. Directly applicable provisions are a direct source of rights and duties for all those affected thereby, whether member states or individuals; this consequence also concerns any national court whose task it is as an organ of a member to protect the rights conferred upon individuals by community law.
In accordance with the principle of the precedence of community law, the relationship between provisions of the treaty and directly applicable measures of the institutions on the one hand and the national law of the member states on the other is such that those provisions and measures not only by their entry into force render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law but – in so far as they are an integral part of, and take precedence in, the legal order applicable in the territory of each of the member states – also preclude the valid adoption of new national legislative measures to the extent to which they would be incompatible with community provisions.
Any recognition that national legislative measures which encroach upon the field within which the community exercises its legislative power or which are otherwise incompatible with the provisions of community law had any legal effect would amount to a corresponding denial of the effectiveness of obligations undertaken unconditionally and irrevocably by member states pursuant to the treaty and would thus imperil the very foundations of the community.
A national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provisions by legislative or other constitutional means.

Citations:

C-106/77, R-106/77, [1978] EUECJ R-106/77, [1978] 3 CMLR 263, [1978] ECR 629

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
Cited – North Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd v Astley and others HL 21-Jun-2006
Civil servants had been transferred to a private company. At first they worked under secondment from the civil service. They asserted that they had protection under TUPE and the Acquired Rights Directive. The respondent said that there had only been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.132534

DDR Distributions Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jul 2012

PROCEDURE – application for named judge – refused – application to set aside earlier direction of Tribunal – occasions when Tribunal could make such a direction – application refused but permission to appeal earlier direction granted

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 443 (TC), [2012] STI 2989, [2012] STI 2743, [2012] SFTD 1249

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.466029

Fidex Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Nov 2011

APPEAL – Strike out application – Jurisdiction to hear appeal – Appeal against closure notice – Following lodging of appeal Revenue seeking to rely on additional ground to defend closure notice – Whether additional ground to be struck out – R.8(2)(a) of Tribunal Procedure (FTT) Tax Chamber Rules (SI 2009/273)

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 713 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449651

Hook v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Nov 2011

FTTTx Penalty for ‘careless’ error – bonus after termination of employment – Appellant’s case that she relied on the P45 – whether careless – on the facts, yes – penalty reduced to 15% for ‘prompted’ disclosure – whether degree of carelessness should affect penalty reduction – whether penalty should be suspended – HMRC’s interpretation of scope of discretion – meaning of ‘flawed’ – appeal dismissed and penalty confirmed

Judges:

Redston

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 739 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449660