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 Subject, and commonly the poorer sort, for malice or private ends, and never for love of justice’. He was paid for the information. He made a further claim for later information, which the revenue said was confirmatory of material they already possessed. They refused to pay.
Held: The revenue have a discretion, not a duty to make an award. No basis had been shown to establish any abuse of the discretion. The claim was dismissed.
[2003] EWHC 681 (Admin)
Common Informers Act 1951, Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 32 34
England and Wales
CitedS v S (Inland Revenue: Tax Evasion) FD 1997
Disclosure of Ancillary Relief Papers to HMRC
Wilson J considered disclosure of materials filed in the course of matrimonial proceedings to the Inland Revenue: ‘Under both r 10.15(6) and r 10.20(3) I have a discretion. In the light of the authorities I propose to exercise it by reference to the . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedA v A, B v B FD 2000
‘the court is not a ‘common informer’. . .
CitedRiach 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 . .
CitedTarner v Walker 1867
The court considered whether the judge had properly left to the jury the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover an advertised reward which was to be paid to ‘any person who will give such information as shall lead to the apprehension . .
CitedVestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners (No 2) ChD 1979
The Commissioners of Inland Revenue do not have, any more than does any other emanation of the Crown, any power to suspend or dispense with laws. ‘It is at this point that there arises what Mr Potter, for the taxpayers, has denominated as a serious . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd CA 1990
Legitimate Expectation once created not withdrawn
The claimant said that a change of practice by the Revenue was contrary to a legitimate expectation.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not withdraw from a representation if it would cause: substantial unfairness to the applicant; if the . .
CitedRegina 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2021; Ref: scu.181949