swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Taxes Management - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Society of Medical Officers of Health v Hope [1960] AC 553
1960
HL
Radcliffe, Cohen, Jenkins LL, Viscount Simons, Keith L
Rating, Taxes Management, Estoppel
A local valuation court had decided in 1951 that the Society's land was exempt from rates under section 1 of the 1843 Act. The exemption was conditional on certain facts relating to the Society and its purpose in occupying the building. In 1956 the land was shown as a rateable in the new valuation list. The Lands Tribunal rejected a submission that a res judicata estoppel arose from the 1951 decision even though it was admitted that there had been no change of circumstances. Held: The limited jurisdiction of the local valuation court, which might have to form opinions on questions of general law, but only incidentally to its direct function of fixing the assessment and the special position of the valuation officer or equivalent official did not create an assessment binding for future years.
Lord Radcliffe said there was: "high and frequent authority for the proposition that it is not in the nature of a decision on one rate or tax that it should settle anything more than the bare issue of that one liability, and that, consequently, it cannot constitute an estoppel when a new issue of liability to a succeeding year' s rate or tax comes up for adjudication. The question of this liability is a "new question."
Lord Keith said: "The valuation officer has a public duty to perform by making periodically every five years a valuation list of all hereditaments, with certain exceptions, in his rating area. He must necessarily reconsider and revise the previous valuation list. He has no personal interest in any appeals taken against his valuations, and has a duty to hold the scales as fairly as he can among the ratepayers affected, the occupiers of the various hereditaments. The general body of ratepayers is constantly changing. With each quinquennium the revaluation will affect a new body of ratepayers. I doubt if the valuation officer owing such a duty to an ever-changing body of ratepayers can be regarded as always the same party in the sense in which that expression is used for the application of the rule of res judicata. What if the appellant society changes its habitat, and moves into another rating area with a different valuation officer?
I emphasise these aspects of the functions of a valuation officer under the statute, for they lead to what I regard as the true answer to the submission for the appellants, which is that a public officer in the position of the respondent cannot be estopped from carrying out his duties under the statute."
Scientific Societies Act 1843 1
1 Citers
Caffoor v Columbo Income Tax Commissioner; PC 1961 - [1961] AC 584
Cenlon Finance Co Ltd v Ellwood (1961) TC 176
1961
Viscount Simonds
Taxes Management
The inspector may use discovery procedures after a tax assessment has been settled where it newly appears that the taxpayer has been undercharged. The discovery allowed is to be given a wide meaning.
1 Citers
Rossano v Manufacturers Life Insurance Co [1963] 2 QB 352
1963
McNair J
Taxes Management, International
The plaintiff an Egyptian national bought insurance from the defendant Canadian company (MLI) with branches inter alia in Egypt. When the policies matured, Rassano brought an action in England claiming the money due under them. In defence, MLI argued, inter alia, that it was not liable to pay Rossano such sums as garnishee orders had been served upon MLI's Egyptian branch by the Egyptian tax department in respect of tax alleged to be due by Rassano and that payment to Rossano would expose MLI to the risk of having to pay the money twice. The policies prescribed the mode of payment as by banker's demand draft on London 'on New York' ie, the situs of the debt was not Egypt. Held: McNair J relied refused recognition of the validity of the garnishment orders, saying that recognition of those orders would offend against the well-settled principle that an English court would not enforce a foreign revenue law.
However, McNair J addressed the parties following arguments on the choice of law question outlined by the learned judge. On behalf of MLI it was submitted (1) that whatever be the proper law of the contract, the debt is and was situated in Cairo and that debt has been validly attached in the country where it was situated; (2) that an English court will as a matter of private international law recognise and give effect to the validity of that attachment and not put a garnishee in peril of having to pay twice, and that it does not matter whether the attachment proceedings are in respect of a revenue claim; (3) that if the debt is not situated in Egypt, the English court will as a matter of comity give effect to the proceedings and will not put the garnishee in peril of having to pay twice if the court is satisfied (a) that by the law of the place of attachment the situs of the debt is in that place, that is, Egypt; or (b) that by the law of the place of attachment there is jurisdiction over the debtor, Rossano, the garnishee, MLI, and the garnishor, the Egyptian tax department.
Rossano had submitted (1) that the situs of the debt was not Egypt; (2) that the garnishee orders were invalid (3) that the garnishee orders provide no defence since (a) no payment has been made under either or (b) Neither of them was made until after the maturity date on which MLI should have paid; (4) that the court should not recognise the garnishee order as to do so would be indirectly at least to enforce a foreign revenue law; and (5) that the orders being in the nature of administrative orders and not orders of any court, an English court will not enforce them. McNair J said: "Many of the points raised in these submissions raise difficult questions of private international law upon which English authority is scanty. But as I have reached the conclusion that the fundamental objection to the recognition of these orders is that their recognition would offend against the well-settled principle that the English court will not recognise or enforce directly or indirectly a foreign revenue law or claim, it is not necessary for me as a matter of decision to deal with many of the other points raised." He went on to observe obiter: "on the assumption that the garnishee orders or either of them are valid by Egyptian law, and by that law binding upon [MLI] . . being garnishee or sequestration orders imposed by the act of the executive, and not the result of any judicial proceedings, must or should an English court afford them recognition . . The editors of Dicey when stating in rule 92 that the validity and effect of an attachment or garnishment of a debt is governed by the lex situs of the debt are clearly referring to garnishee orders made by a competent court. I should not be disposed on general principles to extend the recognition further."
1 Citers
In re Sutherland, dec'd; Winter v Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 1963 - [1963] AC 235
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Luke; HL 1963 - 1963 SC (HL) 65; [1963] AC 557
Argosam Finance Co Ltd v Oxby (Inspector of Taxes); CA 1965 - [1965] Ch 390
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Parker [1966] AC 141; 43 Tax Cas 396; [1966] UKHL TC_43_396; [1966] 1 All ER 399; [1966] 2 WLR 486
1966
HL
Taxes Management
A company capitalised a sum standing to the credit of its profit and loss account and applied it in issuing redeemable debentures to its members in proportion to the amounts paid up on their shares. The company subsequently redeemed the debentures at par. The difficulty arose because the debentures were issued in 1953, long before the enactment of the Finance Act 1960, while notice of redemption was not given until 1961. Held: The Finance Act was not retrospective. The question was whether the redemption and cancellation of the debentures by themselves constituted transactions in securities. The House unanimously held that they did.
Finance Act 1960
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Clixby v Poutney; ChD 1968 - (1968) 44 TC 515; [1968] Ch 719
Conway v Rimmer; HL 28-Feb-1968 - [1968] AC 910; [1968] 2 WLR 998; [1968] 1 All ER 874; [1968] UKHL 2
