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.
Mummery, Arden, Moore-Bick LJJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1132, Times 08-Aug-2006, [2006] STC 1530
Bailii
Finance Act 1998 Sch 18
England and Wales
Citing:
At Special CommissionersVodafone v Revenue and Customs SCIT 24-May-2005
. .
Appeal fromHM 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:
CitedThe 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.
Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.244100