Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1996 To: 1996

This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Wensleydale's Settlement Trustees v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1996] STC 241
1996
SCIT
Mr David Shirley
Taxes Management
The test for where a trust has its tax residence is the place which is the centre of top-level management.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Unilever plc; CA 1996 - [1996] STC 681
 
Billingham (Inspector of Taxes) v Myers Gazette, 09 May 1996; Times, 17 April 1996
17 Apr 1996
CA

Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management
Interest was not payable on a sum due under premature assessment to tax.
Taxes Management Act 1970 88

 
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Dundon [1996] EWCA Civ 543
29 Jul 1996
CA

Taxes Management

[ Bailii ]

 
 Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Stevenson; CA 15-Aug-1996 - Times, 15 August 1996
 
Regina v O'Kane and Another, Ex Parte Northern Bank Ltd Times, 03 October 1996
3 Oct 1996
QBD

Litigation Practice, Taxes Management
The Inland Revenue Commissioners are not able to command the production of documents which it only conjectured to exist.
Taxes Management Act 1970 20(3)

 
The Commissioners of Customs And Excise v Nizar Bassimeh CA Civ 999
20 Nov 1996
CA

VAT, Taxes Management
The respondent had operated a restaurant through a limited company. The commissioners issued notices of assessments and penalties against the company, now in liquidation, and the defendant, on the basis that the company had consistently under-reported its takings. The commissioners appealed a decision setting aside the notices. The argument was as to whether notices had to be issued for the separate quarters. Because the revenue could calculate the penalty as equivalent to the amount under declared, no separate calculation need be made, even though, in this case, no penalty was recoverable for part of the period.
Finance Act 1985 13(4)
[ Bailii ]
 
Fawcett (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax Acts and Lancaster Farmers Auction Mart Company Limited Times, 27 December 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 1093
4 Dec 1996
CA

Income Tax, Taxes Management
Auctioneers were required to report their trading returns to the Inland Revenue so as to show the income of the sellers.
Taxes Management Act 1970 13

 
British Steel Plc v Her Majesty's Commissioners for Customs and Excise [1996] EWCA Civ 1272; [1997] 2 All ER 366
20 Dec 1996
CA
Sir Richard Scott VC, Saville LJ, Millett LJ
Taxes Management
The claimant company paid excise duty on hydrocarbon oil used in its blast furnaces, whilst consistently contending that it was entitled to relief under section 9(1) of that Act on the ground that the oil was not used as fuel. The Commissioners rejected that contention. The claimant brought an action against the Commissioners claiming restitution of the excise duty which it had paid on the basis that it qualified for relief, and that the Commissioners' demands for payment of the duty had accordingly been unlawful. Held: "So there are, in my opinion, two points for decision on this appeal. First, if relief from duty under section 9(1) was unlawfully refused, does it follow that the demands for duty under section 6 were unlawful? Second, if the demands for duty were unlawful, can a common law action for restitution be brought or is the payer restricted to such repayment remedy as may be available under section 9(4)?" and "If the demands by the commissioners for excise duty to be paid on the hydrocarbon oil to be delivered to British Steel's blast furnaces were unlawful demands, it would follow, in my opinion, from the decision of the House of Lords in [Woolwich] that whoever paid the duty would have a common law restitutionary right to repayment. . . In the present case, it is contended that the commissioners' demand for excise duties was unlawful because the commissioners had made an error in deciding that the use of the oil in the British Steel blast furnaces was not a 'qualifying use' and, consequently, had wrongly refused to grant relief from duty under s 9(1). I have yet to examine whether that premise justifies a conclusion that the demands were unlawful; but, if it does, I can see no reason why the principle expressed by Lord Goff should not apply. . . An unlawful demand for duty must, in a sense, always be an ultra vires demand. Whether the demand is based on ultra vires regulations, or on a mistaken view of the legal effect of valid regulations, or on a mistaken view of the facts of the case, it will, as it seems to me, be bound to be a demand outside the taxing power conferred by the empowering legislation. If, for any of these reasons, a demand for tax is an unlawful demand, it seems to me to follow from the speeches of the majority in [Woolwich] that the taxpayer would, prima facie, become entitled, on making payment pursuant to the unlawful demand, to a common law restitutionary right to repayment. The empowering legislation in question, or other legislation, might remove the taxpayer's common law right to repayment. That would depend on the construction of the Act or Acts in question. . . In the present case, if the demands for excise duty were unlawful, the payer would, in my judgment, have a prima facie common law right to repayment. . . I would not construe s 9(4) as removing that common law right. First, the common law right is not expressly removed. Second, s 9(4) does not purport to constitute a comprehensive statutory scheme for recovery of excise duty paid but not due. If duty were demanded and paid on oil that did not correspond to the description of 'hydrocarbon oil' in ss 1 and 2, s 9(4) would not enable recovery to be claimed. The common law claim would be the appropriate means of redress. If prospective relief under s 9(1) had been granted but, unlawfully, duty had none the less been demanded and, perforce, paid, s 9(4) would not apply. The common law claim for restitution would be the means of redress. Third, s 9(4) assumes, implicitly, that the excise duty has been paid pursuant to a lawful demand. It is expressed to deal with a situation in which prospective relief could have been given under s 9(1) but, for some reason or other, has not been given. Prima facie, if prospective relief has not been given under s 9(1), duty will have been properly demanded under s 6. . . . For these reasons, if British Steel has an arguable case that the demands for payment of excise duty were unlawful demands, I would not be willing to strike out its action on the ground that s 9(4) had removed the common law right of recovery."
Millett LJ: "What the appellants have done is to seek to obtain retrospective relief by bringing private law proceedings in restitution to recover duty unlawfully demanded of them by a public authority. They can do this if (i) the demand for payment of the duty was unlawful and (ii) the private law remedy is not excluded by the statutory regime: see [Woolwich]. They have no difficulty with the second of these requirements: the statutory regime established by s 9(1) and (4) is not comprehensive; it is limited to persons who possessed the necessary approval at the relevant time, and the appellants did not. But while this enables the appellants to satisfy the second requirement, it creates an insuperable obstacle in the shape of the first. The commissioners' demand for duty was not unlawful: they were authorised to demand the duty by the combined effect of s 6 of the 1979 Act and s 43(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Section 9(1) of the former Act authorised them to permit the release of oil from bond to an approved person, but they had no power to permit its release to the appellants, even if they were intending to put it to an intended use, unless they could show that they had been approved."
Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 6(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.