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 with a direction for preparation of hearing bundles – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules – rule 2 (overriding objective) – rule 5 (case management powers) – rule 10 (orders for costs)
Sales J said: ‘When construing a consolidating statute, which is intended to operate as a coherent code or scheme governing some subject matter, the principal inference as to the intention of Parliament is that it should be construed as a single integrated body of law, without any need for reference back to the same provisions as they appeared in earlier legislative versions. . . An important part of the objective of a consolidating statute or a project like the Tax Law Rewrite Project is to gather disparate provisions into a single, easily accessible code. That objective would be undermined if, in order to interpret the consolidating legislation, there was a constant need to refer back to the previous disparate provisions and construe them . . ‘

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 1041 (TCC)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEclipse 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 . .
See AlsoEclipse 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 . .
Appeal fromEclipse 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 AlsoEclipse 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 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoEclipse 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 . .
At UTTCEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v HM Revenue and Customs CA 17-Feb-2015
Appeal against closure notice. . .
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners (No 35) Llp v HMRC UTTC 20-Dec-2013
UTTC Carrying on a trade – Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 – R(Jones) v First-tier Tribunal [2013] UKSC 19 – business involving the exploitation of films with a view to profit – section 609 ITTOIA . .
At UTTCEclipse 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, . .
CitedDerry, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 10-Apr-2019
D bought 500,000 shares in TY 2009/10 for pounds 500,000 in Media Pro Four Ltd. In tax year 2010/11 he sold them to ‘Island House Private Charitable Trust’ for pounds 85,500, realising a loss of pounds 414,500. His 2009/10 tax return claimed share . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.509176