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. Â
Taxes Management - From: 1985 To: 1989
This page lists 6 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
ÂKhan and another v First East Brixton General Commissioners and Inland Revenue Commissioners [1986] STC 331
1986
Harman J
Taxes Management
1 Citers
Â
Williams and Humbert Ltd v W and H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd [1986] AC 368
1986
HL
Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Templeman
Taxes Management, International
There had been an expropriation by Spanish decrees of shares in a Spanish company whose English subsidiary had rights in trade marks which it had sold to a Jersey company. The Spanish and English companies sought certain relief in relation to the trade marks, but the dispossessed proprietors sought to argue that the Spanish decrees should not be recognised because they were penal or confiscatory. The defence was rejected on the ground that the claimants' case did not depend on the Spanish decrees, but arose under the general law. The House considered the rule that an English court could not be used to enforce the collection of foreign taxes. Lord Mackay looked at the authorities: "From the decision in the Buchanan case [1955] AC 516 counsel for the appellants sought to derive a general principle that even when an action is raised at the instance of a legal person distinct from the foreign government and even where the cause of action relied upon does not depend to any extent on the foreign law in question nevertheless if the action is brought at the instigation of the foreign government and the proceeds of the action would be applied by the foreign government for the purposes of a penal revenue or other public law of the foreign State relief cannot be given. It has to be observed that in the Buchanan case the action was being pursued by a person whose title as liquidator of the company depended on his having been appointed by a petition to the court in Scotland on behalf of the Inland Revenue, that the ground of action was that the transactions being attacked in the proceedings in Dublin were ultra vires and dishonest because there existed at the time that they were effected in Scotland a claim by the Inland Revenue which the transactions were designed to defeat, and that if no such claim existed the defendant would have been entitled to retain the subject matter of the claim. Most important there was an outstanding revenue claim in Scotland against the company which the whole proceeds of the action apart from the expenses of the action and the liquidation would be used to meet. No other interest was involved. That this was regarded as of critical importance appears from what was said in the decision on appeal by Maguire CJ, at p.533
Having regard to the questions before this House in Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491 I consider that it cannot be said that any approval was given by the House to the decision in the Buchanan case except to the extent that it held that there is a rule of law which precludes a state from suing in another state for taxes due under the law of the first state. No countenance was given in Government of India v Taylor , in Rossano’s case [1963] 2 QB 352 nor in Brokaw v Seatrain UK Ltd. [1971] 2 QB 476 to the suggestion that an action in this country could be properly described as the indirect enforcement of a penal or revenue law in another country when no claim under that law remained unsatisfied. The existence of such unsatisfied claim to the satisfaction of which the proceeds of the action will be applied appears to me to be an essential feature of the principle enunciated in the Buchanan case [1955] AC 516 for refusing to allow the action to succeed."
Lord Templeman: "This rule with regard to revenue laws may in the future be modified by international convention or by the laws of the European Economic Community in order to prevent fraudulent practices which damage all States and benefit no State. But at present the international law with regard to the non-enforcement of revenue and penal laws is absolute."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Plummer v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1987] STC 698; [1988] 1 WLR 292
1987
ChD
Hoffmann J
Taxes Management
The taxpayer had a domicile of origin in England but her family had moved to Guernsey. She remained in England principally for the purpose of completing her education. She intended when she had finished her training and had some experience working in this country to return to Guernsey, where she spent part of her time. The court considered the effect on domicile of a person owning properties in two jurisdictions. Held: The Special Commissioners were entitled to say that her chief residence was in England and that, as the appellant had her chief residence in England, which was her domicile of origin, she had not acquired a domicile of choice in Guernsey. It was premature to say that she was domiciled in Guernsey. A person who retains a residence in his domicile of origin can acquire a domicile of choice in a new country only if the residence established in that country is his chief residence.
Hoffmann J spoke of the Plummer case: "Speaking for myself, while I find the contrast between an inhabitant and a person casually present useful to describe the minimum quality of residence which must be taken up in a new country before a domicile there can be acquired, the concept of being an inhabitant seems to me less illuminating in cases of dual or multiple residence such as the present.
Clearer guidance is to be found in a well-known passage in the speech of Lord Westbury in Udny v Udny:
"Domicile of choice is a conclusion or inference which the law derives from the fact of a man fixing voluntarily his sole or chief residence in a particular place, with an intention of continuing to reside there for an unlimited time."
I infer from this sentence, which was quoted by the commissioners, that a person who retains a residence in his domicile of origin can acquire a domicile of choice in a new country only if the residence established in that country is his chief residence. The commissioners therefore asked themselves whether the taxpayer had made her grandmother's house in Guernsey 'her chief place of residence'. They regarded this question, in my judgment rightly, as being the same as whether 'in the sense in which the term is used in this context' the taxpayer had become an inhabitant of Guernsey."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd Unreported, 1989
1989
Judge J
Taxes Management, Natural Justice
The taxpayer complained of a change in Inland Revenue practice which, it said, went against a legitimate expectation created by the scheme. Held. Judge J said: "There is a detailed procedure for resolving disputes between the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer and if necessary for bringing such disputes to the courts for decision. In addition, however, as the Inland Revenue is an "administrative body with statutory duties" (per Lord Wilberforce in Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte National Federation of Self Employed at page 632) it is not immune from an order for judicial review. Since the decision in the House of Lords in Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Preston [1985] AC 835 the principle has been established that acts which are an abuse of the Inland Revenue's powers or acts done outside those powers may be subject to judicial review.
Abuse of power may take the form of unfairness. This is not mere "unfairness" in the general sense. Even if "unfair", efficient performance of the statutory obligations imposed on the Inland Revenue will not, of itself, amount to an abuse of power"
1 Citers
Â
In re State of Norway's application (Nos 1 and 2) [1990] 1 AC 723
1989
HL
Lord Goff of Chievely
Taxes Management
The House considered an application by a foreign state seeking assistance in obtaining evidence here to be used in enforcing its own revenue laws at home. Held: Rule 3 of the Convention encapsulated a 'fundamental rule of English Law', but did not preclude the application: “I must confess to having given the most anxious consideration to this question. First, the rule is deeply embedded not only in the common law but also in the law of civil law countries. An eloquent account of it in French law is to be found in the exposition by Professor Mazeaud of Bemburg v Fisc de la province de Buenos Aires , 24 February 1949; Tribunal de la Seine; Semaine Juridique, 1949, II, 4816. Second, there appears to exist no case of fiscal proceedings, in relation to which letters of request have been executed in any jurisdiction; and it can be argued (as indeed it is argued by Mazeaud) that, if a change has to be made, it should be made by legislation and not by judicial decision.” "the rule does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, but is concerned rather with circumstances in which the court declines to exercise its jurisdiction." ""One explanation of the rule ... may be thought to be that enforcement of a claim for taxes is but an extension of the sovereign power which imposed the taxes, and that an assertion of sovereign authority by one State within the territory of another, as distinct from a patrimonial claim for a foreign sovereign, is (treaty or convention apart) contrary to all concepts of independent sovereignties."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Regina v Board of Inland Revenue, ex parte Goldberg [1989] QB 267
1989
Taxes Management, Legal Professions
Photocopies of documents were sent to leading counsel. The Inland Revenue sought their production under s20. Held: The copies had been produced for purposes attracting legal professional privilege, and were not discoverable to the Revenue even though the originals might have been.
Taxes Management Act 1970 20
1 Citers
Â
