Site icon swarb.co.uk

Gold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2016

INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – preliminary hearing on matters of law – COP9 letter issued to Mr Budhdeo (‘Mr B’) – contractual disclosure offered and refused – whether FTT has jurisdiction to close a ‘COP9 enquiry’ – no -whether HMRC using SA and CT enquiries and Sch 36 Notices to obtain information to allow them to decide whether to prosecute – whether Mr B has Article 6 right not to self-incriminate – yes – whether companies have right not to self-incriminate in reliance on Mr B’s right – no – whether Mr B can refuse to respond to Sch 36 Notices in reliance on that right – no, having considered Funke v France; Saunders v UK; JB v Switzerland; Allen v UK and other ECtHR authorities – whether the Civil Evidence Act and/or the common law changes that answer – no — similar questions about SA and CT enquiries – relevance of answers when Tribunal decides appeals against Sch 36 Notices and related penalties and applications to close enquiries – whether Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) relevant to the above matters in the context of the Tribunal proceedings – no – application for disclosure of HMRC’s information underpinning COP9 letter refused – directions given for substantive hearing of appeals and applications in issue

[2016] UKFTT 8, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 249, [2016] STI 134, [2016] SFTD 371
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoGold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other) FTTTx 20-Feb-2015
FTTTx PROCEDURE – whether there is an interaction between self-assessment enquiries, corporation tax enquiries and Schedule 36 Notices and penalties on the one hand, and possible criminal prosecution on the other . .
CitedRegina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
CitedSaunders 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 by:
See AlsoGold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other) FTTTx 16-Jan-2017
INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – appeals against Sch 36 Notices and against penalties – applications to close enquiries – whether to stay the appeals and applications behind Mr Budhdeo’s judicial review application – Veolia distinguished – whether . .
See AlsoGold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Appeals Against Sch 36 Notices and Applications To Close Enquiries) FTTTx 25-Apr-2017
Corporation Tax – Appeals Against Sch 36 Notices and Applications To Close Enquiries . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559925

Exit mobile version