Glaxo Group Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 21 Nov 1995

A tax adjustment can be made by the Inland Revenue on an open assessment following transfer pricing enquiry and direction, even after many years. The court considered that the jurisdiction of the special and the general commissioners to determine such issues was exclusive: ‘It is not easy to discern any clear dividing-line between High Court proceedings which are, and those which are not, objectionable as attempts to circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction principle. Possibly the correct view is that there is an absolute exclusion of the High Court’s jurisdiction only when the proceedings seek relief which is more or less co-extensive with adjudicating on an existing open assessment: but that the more closely the High Court proceedings approximate to that in their substantial effect, the more ready the High Court will be, as a matter of discretion, to decline jurisdiction.’
References: Times 21-Nov-1995, Ind Summary 11-Dec-1995, [1995] STC 1075
Judges: Robert Walker J
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 770
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Glaxo Group Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 8-Jan-1996
    A transfer pricing direction allowed the Inland Revenue to issue adjustments after 6 years. . .
    (Ind Summary 08-Jan-96, [1996] STC 191)
  • Applied – 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 . .
    (Times 10-Mar-04, Gazette 25-Mar-04)
  • Cited – UK Tradecorp Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise Admn 10-Nov-2004
    The trader had traded in zero-rated goods, leading to a net reclaim of input tax. Having submitted a claim, it sought repayment, and interest on the sums withheld.
    Held: No duty fell upon the commissioners until they had accepted the claim to . .
    (, [2004] EWHC 2515 (Admin), Times 17-Nov-04)
  • Approved – 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 . .
    (, [2005] UKHL 54, , Times 01-Aug-05, [2005] 3 CMLR 2, [2005] STC 1357, [2005] STI 1336, [2006] 1 AC 118, [2005] 3 WLR 339, [2005] 4 All ER 1141, [2005] BTC 402, [2006] Eu LR 131, 77 TC 504)
  • Applied – Capper v Chaney and Another ChD 8-Jul-2010
    Police had seized substantial sums of cash from the first defendant acting under the 2004 Act. The claimant said that andpound;250,00 was his and sought its return. The Commissioner argued that the current proceedings were an abuse of process.
    ((2010) 174 JP 377, , [2010] EWHC 1704 (Ch))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.80861