Category: Taxes Management

Atec Associates Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Jul 2009

FTTTx PROCEDURE – Application to reinstate – Earlier Direction dismissing appeal given under Old Rules in absence of Applicant or any representative – Subsequent hearing under Old Rules to determine whether earlier Direction should be set aside – No attendance by Applicant – Earlier Direction remained in being – Further Application to reinstate made after coming into force of New Rules – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction – No – Application dismissed – ‘Old’ Trib Rules r.26(3) – SI 2009 No.56 (‘New’ Trib Rules) r.38.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 178 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408999

Grosvenor v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 May 2009

FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme-Cancellation of registration for gross payment (Finance Act 2004 s.66)-Whether ‘reasonable excuse for the failure to comply’ (Finance Act 2004 Sch 11 para 4(4)(a); Taxes Management Act 1970 s.118(2))-Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 283 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 118(2)

Taxes Management, Construction

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408988

Cameron v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Mar 2010

FTTTx Gift Aid – section 98 FA 2002 – election to carry back to previous year -election to be made on or before taxpayer delivers return under section 8 – election made in an amendment to a return- whether made in time.
Held: no.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 104 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408952

Bruns (T/A TK Fabrications) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2010

FTTTx CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – Cancellation of registration for gross payment – whether compliance failure of which account could be taken in cancelling registration – held no – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for compliance failure – held yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 58 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408916

Chalk v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Jan 2010

Self-assessment tax return 2007-08 – andpound;100 late filing penalty – paper return filed 31 January 2009 – Whether delivered in time – No – Appeal dismissed and penalty confirmed – sections 8 and 93 Taxes Management Act 1970

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 23 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 8 93

Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408876

Flaxmode Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Jan 2010

FTTTx INCOME TAX-PENALTY-Failure to produce documents in accordance with section 19 TMA 1970 order – daily penalties imposed under section 97AA(1)(b)TMA 1970 – was the penalty a criminal charge within the meaning given by Strasbourg cases – no – was article 6(3)(a) ECHR engaged – no – did the penalty determination comply with section 100 TMA 1970 – yes – did the Appellant have a reasonable excuse – No – Appeal dismissed

Judges:

Michaell Tildesley

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 28 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 19 97AA(1)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(a)

Income Tax, Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408884

Checkprice (UK) Ltd (In Administration) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 31 Mar 2010

The claimant sought damages having been forced into liquidation after the defendant, it said, wrongfully seized its alcohol goods. Sales J had already held that the reasonable time had expired.
Held: Considering a claim for conversion of the goods in question, Sales J rejected the argument advanced by HMRC by way of analogy with the law on bailment. It had been submitted on behalf of HMRC that in a bailment context the bailee will not be liable for conversion for detaining goods if the reason upon which he relies is, on analysis, an unlawful one, provided he could lawfully have detained the goods for some other reason. Sales J said this: ‘I do not accept this argument. In the bailment example the bailee has an underlying right under the terms of the bailment to detain the goods, and it does not matter whether or not he correctly refers to that right at the time he detains the goods. On proper analysis, he detains the goods in question in circumstances where he has a right to detain them (cf. the right of an innocent party to a contract to rely on breaches of contract against the other party even though they were not invoked by him at the time he treated the contract as having been repudiated: Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell (1888) LR 39 Ch D 339, CA). This analysis does not apply in the present case. HMRC had no right to withhold the goods in question save to the extent that they validly exercised a statutory power to do so. They had a statutory power under section 139(1) of CEMA to detain the goods for a reasonable period, which period expired in mid-August 2007. Thereafter, HMRC could only lawfully retain the goods if they properly exercised their distinct power of seizure contained in section 139(1). Exercise of that power of seizure brings into operation statutory provisions constituting a protective regime for the benefit of the property-owner. The notional availability of the power of seizure cannot be relied upon as a defence to a claim in conversion where it has not in fact been exercised and where, therefore, HMRC have not brought the statutory protective regime into operation. There is no underlying right of retention for HMRC as there is in the bailment situation. HMRC’s right of retention of the goods pursuant to the power of seizure is conditional upon their actual exercise of that power. Therefore, in my judgment, HMRC were liable for conversion in respect of the relevant goods in category C in mid-August 2007.’
As to the measure of damages, Sales J said: ‘section 144 of CEMA does not afford HMRC any defence . . since it is brought on account of the detention of the goods and at the point it arose HMRC’s reasonable grounds for detaining the goods had come to an end (see section 144(2)) . .’

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 682 (Admin), [2010] STC 1153, [2010] ACD 67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 139 144

Citing:

Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406630

Rowland v Revenue Customs: SCIT 14 Jun 2006

SURCHARGE – Taxes Management Act 1970 559C – whether reliance on specialist accountant could be a reasonable excuse – held yes in the particular circumstances — appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKSPC SPC00548, [2006] STC (SCD) 536, [2006] SWTI 1826, [2006] STC 536

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 559C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.242835

Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, HM Inspector of Taxes: CA 13 Dec 2002

The taxpayer entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of a gas pipeline, and sought to set off the costs as a capital allowance.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded: ‘There is nothing in the statute to suggest that ‘up-front finance’ for the lessee is an essential feature of the right to allowances. The test is based on the purpose of the lessor’s expenditure, not the benefit of the finance to the lessee.’
Carnwath LJ said that taxing statutes generally ‘draw their life-blood from real world transactions with real world economic effects’. Secondly, the prodigious intellectual effort in support of tax avoidance results in transactions being structured ‘in a form which will have the same or nearly the same economic effect as a taxable transaction but which it is hoped will fall outside the terms of the taxing statute’. He continued: ‘It is characteristic of these composite transactions that they will include elements which have been inserted without any business or commercial purpose but are intended to have the effect of removing the transaction from the scope of the charge.’

Judges:

Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2002] STI 1809, [2002] EWCA Civ 1853, [2003] BTC 81, [2003] STC 66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 22-Jul-2002
The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
Cited – Gaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
Cited – RFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland SC 5-Jul-2017
The Court was asked whether an employee’s remuneration is taxable as his or her emoluments or earnings when it is paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.188983

Abbey Forwarding Ltd (In Liquidation) v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 6 Feb 2015

Abbey applied for an inquiry as to damages on an undertaking given by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the appointment of a provisional liquidator of Abbey in February 2009. HMRC opposed the application.

Judges:

David Richards J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 225 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.542313

Humphreys v Revenue and Customs: CA 11 Feb 2010

The court was asked as to entitlement to child tax credit where parents were separated but shared the care of the children.
Held: The discretion to be accorded to the legislature or executive is especially wide where the discrimination is indirect rather than direct.

Judges:

Richards LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 56, [2010] UKHRR 497, [2010] 1 FCR 630

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tax Credits Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – (Un-named) (Tax Credits) UTAA 4-Feb-2009
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Jul-2011
The court considered the arrangements for providing public support for the costs of funerals. The claimant’s son had died whilst she was in prison. Assistance had been refused because, as a prisoner, she was not receiving benefits. She complained . .
Appeal from – Humphreys v Revenue and Customs SC 16-May-2012
Separated parents shared the care of their child. The father complained that all the Child Tax Credit was given to the mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the rule does happen to be indirectly discriminatory against fathers, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Taxes Management, Discrimination

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396713

Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another: CA 2 Feb 2010

The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could re-open the assessments, but the taxpayer was able to set off the expense as a capital allowance.

Judges:

Arden, Scott Baker and Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 32, [2010] STC 809, [2010] BTC 154, [2010] STI 435

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCIT – Tower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs SCIT 19-Jul-2007
SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional . .
Appeal from – Tower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Oct-2008
The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the . .

Cited by:

At CA – Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396485

McNulty v HMRC: UTTC 25 May 2012

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.

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 174 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.462879

Singh v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 15 May 2010

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.

Judges:

Warren J P

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 174 (TCC), [2010] BPIR 933, [2010] BTC 1548, [2010] STI 1723, [2010] STC 2020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Smith (a bankrupt) v Braintree District Council HL 1989
The House considered the effects of bankruptcy on the imposition of a committal to imprisonment in default of paying rates.
The purpose of section 285 is to preserve the estate of the bankrupt for the benefit of his unsecured creditors.
Cited – Heath v Tang, Stevens v Peacock CA 11-Aug-1993
The bankrupt applicants each applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the judgment for a liquidated sum on which the bankruptcy petition had been based. In the first case, the trustee in bankruptcy indicated his unwillingness to . .
Cited – Wordsworth v Dixon CA 1997
The bankrupt had been a defendant in the action brought by the plaintiff. The court considered his standing to appeal.
Held: The right to appeal vested in the trustee. Sir Thomas Bingham MR referred to the case of Heath v Tang and said: ‘that . .
Cited – Re a Debtor, ex parte the Debtor v Dodwell ChD 1949
Harman J held that it was for the bankrupt’s trustee alone to settle with the Crown in a case where the bankrupt had been discharged and there was no tax assessment. . .
Cited – Re Hurren (a bankrupt) ChD 1983
There might have been a surplus after paying the debts due to the Inland Revenue (the major creditor).
Held: The way forward was for the trustee to agree the tax liability with the Revenue but only with the consent of the bankrupt. Walton J . .
Cited – Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further and Higher Education and Another CA 28-Nov-2002
Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Judicial Review, Insolvency

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.428155

Society of Industrial Management System v Belgian State: ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ Opinion – Direct Taxation – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital tax treatment of an unusual or gratuitous advantage granted by a resident company to a company having its seat in another Member State in respect of which the first company is in links interdependence – Preservation of a balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States fight against abusive practices

Citations:

C-311/08, [2009] EUECJ C-311/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – Society of Industrial Management System v Belgian State ECJ 21-Jan-2010
ECJ Freedom of establishment Free movement of capital Direct taxation Income tax legislation ‘ Determination of the taxable income of companies ‘ Companies having a relationship of interdependence ‘ Unusual or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Taxes Management

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374770

Clarke v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 8 Jan 2009

SCIT Income Tax – Enquiry under section 9A TMA 1970, requirement to produce and furnish documents under section 19A TMA 1970 – Taxpayer alleging enquiry opened and requirement made for vindictive reasons – Taxpayer arguing that section 19A did not confer authority to require documents to be created –
Held: (1) the Tribunal was required to consider the actual purposes of the officer in giving notice under section 19A; (2) on the evidence the officer’s purposes were the statutory purposes and were not vindictive; (3) section 19A did empower the officer to require the creation of documents; (4) subject to a minor variation the section 19A requirement was upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKSPC SPC00735, [2009] STI 592, [2009] STC (SCD) 278

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 9A

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373744

Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 17 Feb 2009

SCIT Closure notice – application for direction to close enquiry into tax return – limited liability partnership – s 28B Taxes Management Act 1970 – direction for closure within three months

Citations:

[2009] UKSPC SPC00736, [2009] STI 627, [2009] STC (SCD) 293

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 28B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No. 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Sep-2010
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Applications by the parties for further directions – whether departure by HMRC unilaterally from the timetable for preparation for the appeal set down in agreed directions, causing additional . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Jun-2011
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 20-Apr-2012
FTTTx Income tax – limited liability partnership acquired licence to film rights and sub-licensed rights to distributor – complex financing arrangements involving loans to members of the partnership and . .
See Also – HM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v HM Revenue and Customs CA 17-Feb-2015
Appeal against closure notice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373750

Revenue and Customs v Mercury Tax Group Ltd: SCIT 17 Feb 2009

SCIT NOTIFICATION OF TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEMES – penalty -whether scheme notifiable – no.

Judges:

Special Commissioner dr John Avery Jones

Citations:

[2009] UKSPC SPC00737, [2009] STC (SCD) 307, [2009] STI 628

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373752

Deadman Confidential Partnership v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Apr 2009

FTTTx PENALTY DETERMINATION – Failure to comply with notice under section 20 to produce bank statements – s98(1)(b)(i) and s100C TMA 1970 – andpound;300 penalty determined
NOTICE UNDER s19A TMA 1970 – Whether reasonable to have made it – Yes – Appeal dismissed
CLOSURE APPLICATION – Enquiry – Conclusion dependent on outstanding notices under s19A TMA 1970 – Application dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 76 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373603

Touch Logistics v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Mar 2009

FTTTx Default surcharge/ poor performance of financial controller/late payment by 2 substantial customers/clawback by bank on factored payments/ overdraft facility reduced/concession by Respondents at hearing for rescheduling of 2 Vat payments – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 33 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Taxes Management

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373592

Lavery v HM Inspector of Taxes: SCIT 31 Jul 2003

SCIT COSTS – Appellant’s appeal listed before General Commissioners in 1997 – Inland Revenue identified the Appellant’s appeal as a lead case and requested that jurisdiction be transferred to the Special Commissioners – meanwhile appeals of other taxpayers heard by General Commissioners from which Inland Revenue appealed to the High Court – whether the Respondent behaved ‘wholly unreasonably’ in connection with the hearing before the Special Commissioners – no – application dismissed – Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 SI 1994 No. 1811 Reg 21(1)

Citations:

[2003] UKSC SPC00375

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.195431

Regina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill: CACD 31 Jul 2003

The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. At such interview admissions are accepted as a basis for settling civil liabiity, but expressly excluding compromise of any criminal action.
Held: The IR statement that the Code of Practice did not apply at this stage was incorrect. Plainly the officers suspected serious crime, and any practice allowing them to obtain evidence without first cautioning the defendant was wrong. However the admission of the evidence would not have had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to have admitted it. The judge had adequately directed the jury as to the defendants domicile.

Judges:

Mr Justice Astill Lord Justice Clarke The Common Serjeant

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 2256, Times 29-Aug-2003, Gazette 02-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 105, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code C s66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Barker CCA 1941
In the course of investigating the defendant for tax faud, he was interviewed by the Inland Revenue. Relying upon a standard statement by the revenue, the appellant produced two ledgers which had been fraudulently prepared in order to induce the . .
Cited – Regina v Allen HL 11-Oct-2001
The defendant appealed against a finding that he had concealed an emolument, namely accommodation. He said that, as a shadow director of the company within the extended meaning of that phrase under the Act, the deeming provisions under Income Tax . .
Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Cited – Allen v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Sep-2002
The court rejected as inadmissible an application challenging admissibility of evidence obtained from him by the Revenue either by compulsion or inducement.
Held: ‘The Court notes that in this case the applicant does not complain that the . .
Cited – Regina v Okafor CACD 10-Nov-1993
The appellant, a Nigerian national, arrived at Gatwick Airport from Nigeria with a single item of luggage, namely a suit carrier. He was asked a number of questions, in particular whether he had packed the luggage himself and whether everything in . .
Cited – Regina v Absolam CACD 1990
A was arrested. He was already on bail for possession of cannabis, and in the hope finding further evidence he was asked to empty his pockets, ‘and put the drugs on the table’ he did so and admitted selling drugs.
Held: The procedure should . .
Cited – Regina v Grannell CACD 1990
The complainat had seen the burglar/defendant, noted his car number and later identified the car to the police. He identified the defendant from a group identification, but the codes of practice were not followed.
Held: Though the Codes had . .
Cited – Regina v Delaney CACD 11-Jan-1990
Delaney was 18 and with a low IQ. On first interview for indecent assault, he denied the offence, but later came to admit it. The police admitted first minimising the seriousness of the offence, but he alleged greater pressure, resulting in a later . .
Cited – Regina v Quinn CACD 15-Mar-1994
Police must follow the published Code of Practice, when conducting identity parades, and may not substitute their own. If the evidence is allowed in despite the breach, the judge should explain the significance of the breach to the jury, as it may . .
Cited – Han and Yau t/a Murdishaw Supper Bar, and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 3-Jul-2001
The applicant claimed that proceedings under which he had been accused of fraud in dishonestly evading VAT liability were in reality criminal proceedings and that the minimum standards of a fair trial applied.
Held: The characterisation under . .
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 1967
The court considered what was required to establish a domicile at law: ‘First, clear evidence is required to establish a change of domicile. In particular, to displace the domicile of origin in favour of the domicile of choice, the standard of proof . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Taxes Management

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.184914

Franked Investment Income Group, Non-Test Claimants In The Litigation v Inland Revenue and Another: ChD 31 Jul 2019

Two additional issues that arise in the claims of certain non-test claimants in the long-running Franked Investment Income Group Litigation under the group litigation order known as the FII GLO.

Judges:

Falk J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2014 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.640614

Monro v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 9 Apr 2008

The Commissioners conceded that, in principle, there could be a common law right to recover sums paid by way of tax under a mistake of law, but argued that such a claim was precluded because it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme under section 33 of the Taxes Management Act 1970.
Held: The argument succeeded. The common law claim was held to be excluded by a statutory scheme for the recovery of tax, since it would be inconsistent with the purpose of the scheme.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Arden LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 306, [2008] STC 1815, [2008] 3 WLR 734, [2009] Ch 69, [2008] STI 1197, [2008] BTC 188

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Oct-2009
CPAG appealed against a refusal of a declaration that the respondent could use only the 1992 Act to recover overpayment of benefits where there had been neither misrepresentation nor non-disclosure.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the court . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies SC 11-Apr-2017
Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.266518

NEC Semi-Conductors Limited and Other Test Claimants v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ChD 24 Nov 2003

UK companies were subsidiaries of companies resident abroad, and complained that they were unable to make group income elections.
Held: The prohibition infringed non-discrimination provisions of double taxation agreements – non-discrimination provisions had not been given effect in domestic law in respect of advance corporation tax. It did not greatly matter whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction to decide some of the claims or had a discretion to accept or decline jurisdiction since he would decline to exercise whatever jurisdiction he might have. The most important factor was that ‘whether it would be more convenient to commence the entire case in the High Court or not, that is not the system our law provides for the resolution of tax disputes between taxpayers and the Revenue.’ It was not ‘a major inconvenience’ to have two sets of proceedings when they would proceed sequentially and not simultaneously, with the High Court proceedings claiming consequential relief going ahead only if the taxpayers were successful in the proceedings before the special commissioners.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Park

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2813 (Ch), Gazette 29-Jan-2004, [2004] STC 594

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 247

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Marks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) 2003
Marks and Spencer Plc appealed against the refusal of group relief, on the ground that the statutory limitations on the territorial scope of group relief were incompatible with, and overridden by, Community law. The Special Commissioners dismissed . .
See Also – Claimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 3-Mar-2004
Various claimants sought to have issues of law on group relief and other issues settled under a group litigation order.
Held: The High Court had no jurisdiction to hear such matters until they had first been raised in ordinary tax appeals . .

Cited by:

At first instance – 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 – Loss Relief Group, Test Claimants In v Inland Revenue CA 28-May-2004
The taxpayers sought determination by the court of their various claims for group tax relief. The High Court had declined jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge’s attitude was one which would perhaps appeal to most lawyers . .
See Also – Claimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 3-Mar-2004
Various claimants sought to have issues of law on group relief and other issues settled under a group litigation order.
Held: The High Court had no jurisdiction to hear such matters until they had first been raised in ordinary tax appeals . .
Cited – Boake Allen Ltd and others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Jan-2006
The claimant companies had paid corporation tax under rules which had later been found to be discriminatory. They now sought repayment by virtue of double taxation agreements with the countries in which the parent companies were based.
Held: . .
Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.188282

Regina v Hastings and Bexhill General Commissioners, Ex parte Goodacre: ChD 1994

The General Commissioners had made a procedural error in wrongly refusing to grant an adjournment and, on an application for judicial review, the court quashed the refusal, adding that the fact that the taxpayer might not be successful was not a matter with which the court was concerned: what the court was concerned with was to ensure that the taxpayer had a fair opportunity of presenting his case.

Judges:

Schiemann J

Citations:

[1994] STC 799

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Inspector of Taxes v Pumahaven Ltd CA 8-May-2003
The taxpayer company wanted to appeal an assessment to corporation tax. It applied for a postponment of some part of the tax pending the appeal. That was refused, and it appealed to the high court. The revenue now appealed that court’s decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.182363

Griffin v Citibank Investments Ltd: ChD 14 Nov 2000

Where there existed properly constituted documents recording a contract, the court could not go behind them to discover the real transaction. The rules in Ramsay is not a special set of principles restricted to issues in determining the legal effect for taxation of a series of transactions, but rather part of general rules. In this case no steps had been introduced into the transaction whose only purpose was to reduce tax liability, and they could not be seen as one composite whole.

Citations:

Times 14-Nov-2000, Gazette 23-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Contract

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.81036

Clixby v Poutney: ChD 1968

Cross J said: ‘I do not find it in the least surprising that Parliament, when it decided in 1942 to allow assessments to be reopened and penalties claimed at any distance of time if fraud or wilful default was proved, should have wished the provisions which it was enacting to extend to cases where the fraud or wilful default was committed by an agent and it could not be proved that the taxpayer was privy to it . . it would be unfortunate if a taxpayer could escape liability by saying: ‘It is true that you have proved that my agent committed fraud on my behalf; but you have failed to prove that I was privy to it, and as you did not discover it until after six years had expired I can take – and propose to take – advantage of it.”

Judges:

Cross J

Citations:

(1968) 44 TC 515, [1968] Ch 719

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 12-Nov-2014
PPI Sale – No Recovery from Remote Parties
The claimant sought repayment of payment protection insurance premiums paid by her under a policy with Norwich Union. The immediate broker arranging the loan was now insolvent, and she sought repayment from the second and other level intermediaties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.538769

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 an appeal or to issue such a certificate.
Held: The scheme created by the 1971 Act was a special one. A certificate could only be granted where the contractor met the conditions set down in the 1998 Act. The company’s breaches in this case had not been merely technical, and therefore the Commissioners’ decision had been wrong. The court had jurisdiction under the 1070 Act to issue the necessary orders.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 16-Apr-2004, [2004] EWHC 602 (Ch)

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 561(9), Finance Act 1971 29 30, Taxes Management Act 1970 56(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lothbury Investment Corporation Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1979
The taxpayer company was a non-trading company owing shareholders substantial sums. Rather than pay dividends it waived dividends it held in a public company, and the shareholder waived interest on the loans. The IR apportioned the income of the . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority v the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions QBD 26-Jun-2003
Captain Wyatt owned land near the harbour and wanted to moor his boat by it. The Harbour authority said he needed a licence. The Harbour authority requested him to move the boat as a danger to navigation. The Captain sought a judicial review of the . .
Cited – Colpitt v Australian Communications 1986
The word ‘review’ means a rehearing which may pronounce anew the rights of the parties. . .
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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Construction, Taxes Management

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.194993

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd: HL 14 Mar 1994

The applicant had obtained what it thought to be clearance from the Revenue for a complex scheme, whose effectiveness depended on whether investors would qualify for capital allowances. The Inspector initially gave a favourable assurance, but that was subsequently withdrawn.
Held: The taxpayer’s application failed. A tax clearance certificate was properly withdrawn for a failure by the taxpayer to make a full disclosure.
Lord Jauncey refered to Lord Templemen’s dicta in the Preston case and said: ‘I take from these passages (i) that the court may properly review a decision of the Revenue to exercise it’s statutory powers if the decision is so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power although the court has a discretion to refuse relief even if such decision does not savour of such abuse…’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: ‘It is now established that, in certain circumstances, it is an abuse of power for the Revenue to seek to extract tax contrary to an advance clearance given by the Revenue. In such circumstances, the taxpayers can by way of judicial review apply for an order preventing the Revenue from seeking to enforce the tax legislation in a sense contrary to the assurance given (see Preston -v- IRC [1985] AC 835). But the courts can only restrain the Revenue from carrying out their duties to enforce taxation obligations imposed by legislation where the assurances given by the Revenue make it unfair to contend for a different tax consequence, as a result of which unfairness the exercise of their statutory powers by the Revenue would constitute an abuse of power (see [1985] AC 835 at 864 per Lord Templeman). It is further established that if the taxpayer, in seeking advance clearance, has not made a full disclosure of the relevant circumstances, the Revenue are not acting unfairly, and therefore are not abusing their powers, if they go back on an advance clearance which they have only given in ignorance of the relevant circumstances (see [1985] AC 835 at 867 per Lord Templeman, and R -v- IRC, ex p MFK Underwriting Agencies Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545’.
Lord Griffiths: ‘In this case the local tax Inspector made a bad mistake. He gave clearance to a scheme proposed by Matrix Securities which Lord Templeman has exposed as a manifestly impermissible tax avoidance scheme. Although the letter of 15 July 1993 in which Matrix put the scheme to the Inspector was not expressed as clearly as it might have been, I have no doubt that if the Inspector had read it carefully he would have realised either that it was a tax avoidance scheme or at the very least it should be considered by the special list division of the Inland Revenue before clear answer was given. In either case he should not have given his clearance.
. . . I wish however to add a word of a more general nature to the issue that has arisen in the appeal. It is part of the human condition that people will make mistakes, but they must not be held to mistaken decisions if the mistake is discovered in time to take effective remedial action. In the present case the specialist unit discovered the mistake made by their tax Inspector and gave immediate notice to Matrix that they could not approve the scheme before any money had been invested by the public in the scheme. In these circumstances even if the Inspector had been the right person to submit the secheme to in the first instance, and even if the scheme had been clearly set out it would be wholly wrong to hold the Revenue to the mistaken clearance and allow the scheme to go ahead at a cost of some 38 million pounds of lost Revenue to the national exchequer. It is one thing to hold the Revenue to a clearance that has been acted upon in good faith, but quite another to permit the correction of an error before it has been acted upon.
If however Matrix had been entitled to rely on the clearance given by the Inspector and had spent money in promoting the scheme before the clearance was withdrawn, then it seems to me that fairness demands that Matrix should be reimbursed for this out of pocket expense and it could be regarded as an abuse of power for the Revenue to refuse to do so. This point does not have to be decided in this appeal but I mention it because this aspect of the argument only surfaced towards the end of the hearing and the Revenue strenuously resisted any liability to compensate Matrix in such circumstances.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey, Lord Griffiths

Citations:

Ind Summary 14-Mar-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 334, [1994] STC 272

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd CA 10-Nov-1993
The withdrawal of a scheme approval after non-disclosure by the taxpayer was not an abuse of power by the Commissioners. . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston HL 1984
Duty of Fairness to taxpayer – Written Assurance
The applicant was assured by the Inland Revenue that it would not raise further inquiries on certain tax affairs if he agreed to forgo interest relief which he had claimed and to pay a certain sum in capital gains tax.
Held: Where the . .
At First Instance – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd QBD 22-Oct-1993
A tax clearance was properly withdrawn because of non-disclosure. There was no abuse by the Revenue. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Beatrix Potter School ex parte Kanner Admn 20-Dec-1996
The applicant’s child had been offered a place by the respondent. The offer was withdrawn.
Held: The school when deciding was entitled to look to the need for efficiency in education. On appeal, the committee may go against that need. The . .
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 – ABC Ltd v Inspector of Taxes SCIT 20-Jul-2001
SCIT CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – Purchase by a UK company of plant and machinery from XYZ, a non-UK corporation – Lease back by the company to XYZ – Sublease by XYZ to a subsidiary UK company – Various security . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86935

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd: QBD 22 Oct 1993

A tax clearance was properly withdrawn because of non-disclosure. There was no abuse by the Revenue.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd CA 10-Nov-1993
The withdrawal of a scheme approval after non-disclosure by the taxpayer was not an abuse of power by the Commissioners. . .
At First Instance – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd HL 14-Mar-1994
The applicant had obtained what it thought to be clearance from the Revenue for a complex scheme, whose effectiveness depended on whether investors would qualify for capital allowances. The Inspector initially gave a favourable assurance, but that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86937

Tomlinson v Revenue and Customs: ChD 1 Nov 2007

Appeal by case stated brought by the taxpayer, Mr Tomlinson, against a decision of the General Commissioners when they dismissed his appeal against a penalty of andpound;100 imposed upon him for failure to comply with a notice under section 8 of the 1970 Act to make and deliver a personal tax return for the tax year 2003 to 2004. The taxpayer had been served with a notice requiring the submission of a tax return, but had instead submitted a form R40 with the revenue lost. He said that the R40 was commonly used for this purpose, providing the necessary information, and the requirement to submit a further return was unlawful.
Held: The appal failed. The appellant’s submission that the requirement was invalid unless given n the name of an official inspector failed.
The R40 was a very different animal from the section 8 return, and in any event the taxpayer’s circumstances were such as to justify the competion of a full return. It as not a substitute for the full return.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2966 (Ch), 79 TC 271

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 8(1) 93(1) 93(2) 93(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.341753

Gaines-Cooper v Revenue and Customs: CA 23 Oct 2008

Renewed application for permission to pursue a second appeal in order to challenge an order of Lewison J, dated 13 November 2007, upholding a decision of the Special Commissioners that the appellant was domiciled in England and Wales in the relevant tax years. That decision followed the finding by the Special Commissioners that the appellant had not, contrary to his claim, established a domicile of choice in the Seychelles in place of his domicile of origin in England and Wales.’

Judges:

Wilson, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1502

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCIT – Gaines-Cooper v Revenue and Customs SCIT 31-Oct-2006
SCIT INCOME TAX – preliminary issues – domicile, residence and ordinary residence in tax years 1992/93 to 2003/2004 – Appellant purchased house in the Seychelles in 1975 and obtained a residency permit in 1976 – . .
Appeal from – Gaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Davies and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2011
The Revenue had published a booklet, IR20, setting out their approach to the interpretation of the phrases ‘residence’ and ‘ordinary residence’. The taxpayer said that this was a more generous definition than the statutory one, and that having acted . .
Leave – Davies and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 16-Feb-2010
The parties disputed the interpretation of a booklet issued by the Revenue (IR20) as it defined the phrase ‘ordinarily resident’. In particular the taxpayer complained of an unannounced change of practice made after they had arranged their lives . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279975

Al Fayed v Advocate General for Scotland (Representing the Inland Revenue Commissioners): SCS 29 Jun 2004

The petitioners reclaimed against an interlocutor refusing their petition for judicial review of the refusal of the Commissioners to abide by an agreement reached with them.
Held: The Revenue were permitted, in exercise of a managerial discretion, to resile from an agreement made with a taxpayer as to forward tax.
The Lord President, giving the judgment of the court, stated: ‘Parliament imposed tax on actual transactions. Since that was so, a compromise required to relate to actual transactions, for it was in relation to them that the respondents were entitled to collect tax. A forward tax agreement did not involve the taxation of taxable transactions that had occurred. It did not involve the agreement and collection of a compromise sum in relation to an existing liability to tax. It involved the agreement to pay and accept a fixed sum in respect of future transactions which might or might not occur. The sum was unrelated to the amounts involved in future transactions. It was arbitrary, and did not relate to the actual level of taxation which was due on transactions. It particularised the exact sum which was to be paid, but without the respondents having any inkling as to the actual level of taxable transactions.’
As to back tax, however: ‘In that context they have power to arrange a compromise with the taxpayer, taking into account such factors as may be relevant.’

Judges:

Lord President, Lord Kirkwood, Lord MacLean

Citations:

[2004] ScotCS 278, [2004] STC 1703, 77 TC 273

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Valentines Homes and Construction Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Mar-2010
The claimant had applied for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to seek to recover a debt from them. The issue had however been settled in the County Court. Costs were ordered against them, and they now appealed. In a small company the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279602

Carrimore Six Wheelers Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1944

Citations:

(1944) 26 TC 301

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Eagerpath Ltd v Edwards (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 14-Dec-2000
Where the special commissioner had determined that the dispute had been concluded by agreement, the taxpayer was precluded from appealing that decision claiming an ‘error or mistke’ That issue was not one relating to the computation of profits in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.196012

Riach v Lord Advocate: SCS 1931

The court considered the issue of a reward to a revenue informer: ‘the value of the result of the information . . may prove to be nothing for reasons of which the informer may be totally unaware, eg, that the Inland Revenue authorities may already be in possession of much of the information which the informer believes to be confined to himself.’

Judges:

Lord President Clyde, Lord Blackburn

Citations:

(1931) 18 TC 18

Statutes:

Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 34

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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

Taxes Management

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.194954

Sanderson v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 21 Jan 2016

Judges:

Patten, Briggs, Simon LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 19, [2016] STI 237, [2016] BTC 3, [2016] 4 WLR 67, [2016] WLR(D) 49, [2016] STC 638, [2016] 3 All ER 203

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.559158

Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 25 Oct 2013

Application for judicial review of a decision of the Defendants acting by one of their most senior officials to disclose information relating to the claimants in an ‘off the record’ briefing with two journalists.
Held: The request for judicial review was refused. There was a proper connection between the function of the commissioners to collect tax in an efficient and cost-effective way and the disclosures made by the official in the course of his briefing, and his decision to make the limited revelations that he had was based on a judgment which fell within the lawful parameters of section 18(2)(b) of the 2005 Act. The disclosure might assist the Commissioners in persuading the public not to engage in such film investment schemes. The rationality standard is a flexible one, which varies in the width of discretion allowed to a decision-maker according to the strength of the public interest and the strength of the interests of any individual affected by the decision to be taken. He laid stress on the fact that the disclosures made were limited and that the interview was agreed to be off the record.

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3258 (Admin), [2014] BTC 3, [2013] STI 3400, [2013] WLR(D) 410, [2014] STC 673, [2014] ACD 65

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 18 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs CA 4-Mar-2015
The claimant sought judicial review of the disclosure, off the record by an officer of the defendant to a journalist, of confidential materials as to their investigation of his involvement in a film investment scheme. The claim had been rejected by . .
Ar First Instance – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2016
The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Taxes Management

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.517003

Tower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 13 Oct 2008

The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the re-opening of the assessments was allowed. Henderson J set out also why he would have allowed the taxpayer’s appeal as to the claimaing of the allowance.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2387 (Ch), [2008] BTC 805, [2008] STI 2249, [2008] STC 3366

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs SCIT 19-Jul-2007
SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another CA 2-Feb-2010
The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could . .
At ChD – Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276838

Davies and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 19 Oct 2011

The Revenue had published a booklet, IR20, setting out their approach to the interpretation of the phrases ‘residence’ and ‘ordinary residence’. The taxpayer said that this was a more generous definition than the statutory one, and that having acted on it he had a legitimate expectation that the booklet’s interpretation would continue to be applied.
Held: The appeals failed (Lord Mance dissenting). The interpretations argued for by the taxpayers of the IL20 guidance did not apply. To lose British residence there had to be a ‘distinct break’ with life in the UK. This requred a multifactorial assessment, amongst which the taking of a permanent employment will carry geat weight. HMRC was bound by the guidance, but it was not as suggested.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson

Citations:

[2011] UKSC 47

Links:

Bailii Summary, Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 334

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCIT – Gaines-Cooper v Revenue and Customs SCIT 31-Oct-2006
SCIT INCOME TAX – preliminary issues – domicile, residence and ordinary residence in tax years 1992/93 to 2003/2004 – Appellant purchased house in the Seychelles in 1975 and obtained a residency permit in 1976 – . .
At High Court – Gaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
Appeal from – Gaines-Cooper v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Renewed application for permission to pursue a second appeal in order to challenge an order of Lewison J, dated 13 November 2007, upholding a decision of the Special Commissioners that the appellant was domiciled in England and Wales in the relevant . .
Cited – Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1928
Until 1919 Mr. Levene had been both resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. Then, for five years he spent about five months (mainly in the summer) each year, staying in hotels in the UK and receiving medical attention or pursuing religious and . .
Appeal from – Davies and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 16-Feb-2010
The parties disputed the interpretation of a booklet issued by the Revenue (IR20) as it defined the phrase ‘ordinarily resident’. In particular the taxpayer complained of an unannounced change of practice made after they had arranged their lives . .
Applied – Reed v Clark ChD 1986
The taxpayer defendant (C) had been both resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. He moved to Los Angeles in 1978 making his home and business there until May 1979, when, not having set foot in the UK in the interim, he returned to reside in the . .
Cited – Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.447485

Jazztel Plc v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 24 Jul 2019

This appeal raises the question of the ambit of s.234 of the Finance Act 2013, in circumstances where a Group Litigation Order has been made, the lead claimant has succeeded in a judgment at first instance and other claimants in the GLO wish to advance their claims for the recovery of tax paid on the basis of the judgment. It is common ground that s.234 inhibits such claims: the issue is on what basis and to what extent?

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1301

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2013 234

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.639783

Tower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 19 Jul 2007

SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional contract – whether the expenditure paid 10 months after the date of the contract was still paid under a contract that required payment within a four month period, or whether the eventual payment was under a varied contract – whether one of the Appellants had commenced trading before the end of the tax year 2003/2004 – whether the value of the software was broadly in line with the capital expenditure ostensibly given by the LLPs in which the Appellants were members – how to analyse the transaction for capital allowance purposes if the value of the acquired asset was materially lower than the price paid initially for the asset with the support of non-recourse loans – Appeal by LLP1 dismissed and appeal by LLP2 dismissed in part.

Judges:

Mr Howard Nowlan

Citations:

[2007] UKSPC SPC00619, [2008] STC (SCD) 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Oct-2008
The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the . .
At SCIT – Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another CA 2-Feb-2010
The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could . .
At SCIT – Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259275

C and D Flowers Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Jun 2019

EMPLOYER’S ANNUAL RETURNS – P35 – Section 98A Taxes Management Act 1970 (‘TMA’) – flat-rate penalties for failure to file a P35 return on time – whether taxpayer had a reasonable excuse for her default – Permission to appeal out of time refused – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 405 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.639111

Morris and Another v Revenue and Customs: ChD 23 May 2007

The court heard an appeal against a preliminary decision of the Special Commissioners about two issues of principle which affect forthcoming appeals against assessments to self-assessments made by the Respondent Commissioners against them. The two issues are: (a) whether the time limit imposed by section 34 of the 1970 Act (‘TMA’) applies to closure notices under section 28A(2) TMA so as to amend the taxpayers’ returns containing the self-assessment of their liability to CGT for the year 1997/98; and (b) whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) as applied by the Human Rights Act 1998 to the taxpayers’ appeals against the penalty determinations under s.95 TMA alters the burden of proof in relation to the appeals against the other assessments and notices which are listed for hearing at the same time but do not themselves involve any element of penalty.

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1181 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 28A 34 95, European Convention on Human Right 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252515

Cooke, Regina (on the Application of) v Revenue and Customs: Admn 30 Jan 2007

The revenue had required production of the taxpayer’s documents held on his behalf by his solicitors, who now applied for judicial review, claiming the protection of section 20.
Held: The protection given to a taxpayer for documents held by him did not extend to documents held for him by his lawyers. The court pointed out however that the revenue remained under a duty to give reasons for a request, and might still suffer judicial review in appropriate circumstances.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 81 (Admin), Times 12-Feb-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1980 20

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Legal Professions

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250588

Stone (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Hitch and others: CA 26 Jan 2001

As an exception to the general rule, it is not invariably necessary to show, in relation to multi party transactions, that every party to it knew it was a sham.
Arden LJ said: ‘Third, the fact that the act or document is uncommercial, or even artificial, does not mean that it is a sham. A distinction is to be drawn between the situation where parties make an agreement which is unfavourable to one of them, or artificial, and a situation where they intend some other arrangement to bind them. In the former situation, they intend the agreement to take effect according to its tenor. In the latter situation, the agreement is not to bind their relationship.’

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 63, [2001] STC 214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hitch and Others v Stone (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 7-Apr-1999
A tax avoidance scheme was effective despite being complex and artificial. The documents affected third party rights in potential development land, and it was impossible to conclude it was a sham. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Roger Stone (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Richard Henry Hitch; Thomas Henry Hitch and Ian Geoffrey Handy CA 26-Jan-2001
The essence of whether a deed was a sham, was whether the deed proclaimed one set of intentions, but the parties acted out another. The deeds in this case were capable of being seen as a sham as respects one or more deeds in the combination of . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Dempster (T/A Boulevard) ChD 24-Jan-2008
The revenue wished to refuse a claim to set off input tax for two transactions involving the alleged purchase of software. They said the transactions were a sham.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed.
Briggs J said: ‘the critical question . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.200751

Perfectos Printing Inks Ltd, Perfectos Printing Inks Group Ltd and Dr Price v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2019

Income Tax – closure notices under sections 28A and 28B of the Taxes Management Act 1970 and section 32, Sch18 Finance Act 1998; and appeals against information notices issued under Schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008; whether copies sufficient; reasonably required and reasonable grounds considered

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 388 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639124

Regina v R (Inland Revenue: Tax Evasion): FD 1 Jul 1998

The court declined to order the return by the Inland Revenue of documents disclosed to it regarding a husband’s failure to disclose income, where the disclosure was recent and tax payable could affected the order. The wife’s wrongful behaviour in maing the disclosure was to be reflected in court order.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Jul-1998, [1998] 1 FLR 922

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Family, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.88590

PQ v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2019

Information Notice – Ex Parte Application To Issue Third Party Information Notice To Non-Resident Persons – Jimenez and KBR considered – found HMRC had established sufficient connection between intended recipients and information sought in view of public interest in proper assessment and collection of tax and fact intended recipients were British nationals or, in alternative, fact that intended recipients had been directors and shareholders of UK company at time alleged UK tax liability arose and were the ones who took decisions which led to that alleged liability arising

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 371 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638538

Prudential Insurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 12 Apr 2006

PRACTICE – public interest immunity – parts of Manuals withheld from publication because disclosure would prejudice the assessment or collection of tax or assist tax avoidance or evasion – PII should be claimed before the Tribunal in the same way as in court with a certificate by the Commissioners – after inspection of the documents the claim for PII was upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19675

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244216

HM Revenue and Customs v Vodafone 2: CA 28 Jul 2006

The inspector had sought additional information from the company with respect to its tax returns, believing that the company had not provided sufficient information about the earnings of foreign controlled companies. They now challenged the ability of the commissioners, upheld at first instance to rule on a question of law.
Held: Schedule 33 contained no such limitation on the commissioners powers. The paragraph ‘would seem to confer on the Commissioners a power to do anything that the Commissioners reasonably consider necessary to enable them to be satisfied as to the matters required by that paragraph.’ Therefore paragraph 33 confers jurisdiction on the Commissioners to decide incidental questions of law rising on an application under that paragraph.

Judges:

Mummery, Arden, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

Times 08-Aug-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1132, [2006] STC 1530

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1998 Sch 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Special Commissioners – Vodafone v Revenue and Customs SCIT 24-May-2005
. .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v Vodafone 2 ChD 2006
The revenue had sought an order for disclosure of documents relating to the income of wholly controlled subsidiaries. There was no difference between the case where a question of Community law arose on which a preliminary ruling by the ECJ was . .

Cited by:

Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244100