The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its registration for gross payment.
Held: The company’s appeal failed: ‘the company’s submission comes down to a short point: that is, given the existence of a discretion in section 66, it must in the absence of any specific restriction be treated as an unfettered discretion. That to my mind overlooks the basic principle that any statutory discretion must be exercised consistently with the objects and scope of the statutory scheme.’
Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs
 UKSC 31,  1 WLR 3117,  STI 1110,  4 All ER 95,  STC 1394,  WLR(D) 348,  BTC 24, UKSC 2017/0016
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii ummary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 10 May 2018 am Video, SC 10 May 2018 pm Video
Finance Act 2004, Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005
England and Wales
At FTTTx – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Oct-2012
FTTTxp INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – whether properly exercised – Failure to take into account effect of cancellation . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd UTTC 13-Jul-2015
UTTC INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s 66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – scope of – whether properly exercised – failure to take into account effect of . .
At CA – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 24-Nov-2016
Important point of principle concerning the power of HMRC, to cancel the registration of a taxpayer for gross payment under the legislation which governs the Construction Industry Scheme. . .
Cited – Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) v Vicky Construction Ltd ChD 6-Dec-2002
The General Commissioner had held that an inspector’s refusal to renew a certificate allowing the taxpayer construction company to pay its sub-contractors without deducting income tax, infringed that company’s rights. The inspector appealed.
Cited – Barnes (HMIT) v Hilton Main Construction ChD 15-Apr-2005
The revenue had refused to renew the respondent’s certificate, and now itself appealed against the contractor’ success on appeal to the General Commissioners. . .
Cited – Denley v Revenue and Customs UTTC 25-Aug-2017
Excise Duties . .
Cited – Regina v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Hook CA 1976
The applicant applied to have quashed the decision of the local council to exclude him from trading in the market and to revoke his right to have a stall.
Held: He succeeded on the grounds that the decision had been taken in breach of the . .
Cited – Gasus Dosier-Und Fodertechnik Gmbh v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Feb-1995
Even where an interference in property rights involved the complete loss of a person’s economic interest in an asset for the benefit of the State, an absence of compensation might still be compatible with Article 1. ‘The Court recalls that the . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .
Cited – The National and Provincial Building Society, The Leeds Permanent Building Society And The Yorkshire Building Society v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Oct-1997
ECHR United Kingdom – applicants’ legal claims to restitution of monies paid under invalidated tax provisions extinguished under the effects of retrospective legislation (section 53 of Finance Act 1991 and . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
Cited – Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.617856