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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Inspector of Taxes v Pumahaven Ltd [2002] STC 1423
2002
ChD
Park J
Taxes Management
The taxpayer appealed for permission to postpone payment of Corporation Tax pending determination of an appeal on that assessment. The application was refused.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Woodward v Inland Revenue [2002] EWCA Civ 123
31 Jan 2002
CA

Insolvency, Taxes Management
The claimant alleged malitious prosecution on the part of the revenue.
Insolvency Act 1986 282
[ Bailii ]
 
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Sema Group Pension Scheme Trustees Gazette, 21 March 2002
7 Feb 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Lightman
Taxes Management
The Trustees of an exempt approved pension scheme bought shares, and sold them at a lower price to the company. Under the 1988 Act, this operated to create a tax credit. The revenue issued a notice and assessment under Schedule F to defeat that tax credit. The trustees successfully appealed that to the Commissioners, and the Revenue appealed in turn. Held: The sum received by the trustees was by way of an 'abnormal dividend' within section 704A. The condition of Part XVII were satisfied, and the revenue were right to treat it under tax-avoidance provisions. The notice and assessment were re-instated.
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 231(1) 704A Part XVII
1 Citers


 
Wilkinson v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2002] EWHC 182 (Admin); [2002] STC 347
14 Feb 2002
Admn
Moses J
Taxes Management, Discrimination, Human Rights
The case concerned the differential tax treatment between men and women, which granted to widows a tax allowance that was not granted to widowers. Held: The court made a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ pursuant to section 4. 1(1) of the TMA gives to the Commissioners a wide statutory power to grant concessions to taxpayers which derogate from their obligations to pay tax in accordance with the letter of the applicable tax legislation
Human Rights Act 1998 4 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 262 - Taxes Management Act 1970 1(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Slater Ltd and others v Beacontree Commissioners for the General Purposes of Income Tax [2002] EWCA Civ 259
20 Feb 2002
CA
Robert Walker LJ
Taxes Management, Corporation Tax
Application for leave to appal against penalties imposed for failing to complay with notices requiring the production of documents to the Commissioners.
[ Bailii ]
 
Fox v Mckay (HMIT) and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 328
8 Mar 2002
CA
Chadwick LJ
Taxes Management
Renewed application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd Times, 20 May 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] UKHL 21; [2002] 2 WLR 1299; [2003] 1 AC 563; 74 TC 511; [2002] STC 786; [2002] BTC 223; [2002] 3 All ER 1; [2002] HRLR 42; [2002] NPC 70; [2002] STI 806; 4 ITL Rep 809
16 May 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote
Legal Professions, Taxes Management, Human Rights, European
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege. Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of ensuring human rights as a right of privacy, and is recognised in European law (A M & S Europe Ltd). A statute which sought to overrule such rights had to be much clearer to achieve that effect. Reference to the protection of privilege in one subsection was not sufficient to exclude the protection of privilege in other subsections by implication. A necessary implication is not the same as a reasonable implication: "A necessary implication is one which necessarily follows from the express provisions of the statute construed in their context. It distinguishes between what it would have been sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably have included and what it is clear that the express language of the statute shows that the statute must have included. A necessary implication is a matter of express language and logic not interpretation."
Lord Hoffmann set out the reason underlying legal professional privilege, and its importance: "LPP is a fundamental human right long established in the common law. It is a necessary corollary of the right of any person to obtain skilled advice about the law. Such advice cannot be effectively obtained unless the client is able to put all the facts before the adviser without fear that they may afterwards be disclosed and used to his prejudice."
. . And the courts will: "construe general words in a statute, although literally capable of having some startling or unreasonable consequence, such as overriding fundamental human rights, as not having been intended to do so. An intention to override such rights must be expressly stated or appear by necessary implication".
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough explained: "A necessary implication is not the same as a reasonable implication . . A necessary implication is one which necessarily follows from the express provisions of the statute construed in their context. It distinguishes between what it would have been sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably have included and what it is clear that the express language of the statute shows that the statute must have included. A necessary implication is a matter of express language and logic not interpretation."
Taxes Management Act 1970 20(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Parmar and others (trading as Ace Knitwear) v Woods (Inspector of Taxes) Gazette, 11 July 2002
30 May 2002
ChD
Lightman J
Taxes Management, Natural Justice
The taxpayers had been represented by a professional accountant, but incompetently. They sought leave to renew the appeal on the basis that the representation had been poor. Held: The chartered accountant had a statutory right of audience. His fitness and expertise was warranted and assumed. No breach of natural justice had occurred. His incompetence in fact was a matter for his professional body, and a renewed hearing, save in one aspect, was not allowed.
1 Cites


 
Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) Times, 26 August 2002; Gazette, 03 October 2002; [2002] EWHC Ch 1525; [2003] STC 66
22 Jul 2002
ChD
Park J
Corporation Tax, Taxes Management
The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of £91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme. Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax avoidance scheme. However, here the company already owned and operated the pipeline, and continued to do so after the arrangement. It owed the money before, and still owed it afterwards. The issue was whether the company had incurred the expenditure in provision of the pipeline, and practitioners should be careful not to lose themselves in the technical minutiae of the documentation. This was merely financial engineering, and did not qualify: "If corporation tax rates changed, the head lease rent payable to BMBF would change but the sublease rent payable by BGE (UK) would remain the same. If I have understood correctly how it would work, if the head lease rent went up BGE (UK) would still pay the full amount of the sublease rent to BMBF, and the balance of the (now) increased head lease rent would be paid by BGE to BMBF; if the head lease rent went down BGE (UK) would pay part of the sublease rent to BMBF (that part being equal to the (now) reduced head lease rent) and would pay the balance of the sublease rent to BGE."
Capital Allowances Act 1990 24(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Allen v United Kingdom 76574/01; [2002] ECHR 858
10 Sep 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Taxes Management
The court rejected as inadmissible an application challenging admissibility of evidence obtained from him by the Revenue either by compulsion or inducement. Held: "The Court notes that in this case the applicant does not complain that the information about his assets which he gave the Inland Revenue was used against him in the sense that it incriminated him in the commission of an offence due to acts or omissions in which he had been involved prior to that moment. His situation may therefore be distinguished from that of the applicant in Saunders … The applicant was charged with and convicted of the offence of making a false declaration of his assets to the Inland Revenue. In other words, he lied, or perjured himself through giving inaccurate information about his assets. This was not an example of forced self-incrimination about an offence which he had previously committed; it was the offence itself. It may be that the applicant lied in order to prevent the Inland Revenue uncovering conduct which might possibly be criminal and lead to a prosecution. However, the privilege against self-incrimination cannot be interpreted as giving a general immunity to actions motivated by the desire to evade investigation by the revenue authorities." The court noted small penalties for refusing a declaration and the two years imprisonment for refusing to answer questions in Saunders and added: "Nor does the Court consider that any improper inducement was brought to bear through the use of the so-called "Hansard Warning" which informed the applicant of the practice of the Inland Revenue of taking into account the co-operation of the taxpayer in deciding whether to bring any prosecution for fraud. There is no indication that the applicant was misled as to the effect of the warning, accepting that it could not be interpreted as any kind of guarantee of freedom from prosecution. Consequently, the Court does not find that the facts of this case disclose any infringement of the right to silence or privilege against self-incrimination or that there has been any unfairness contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Guthrie (Inspector of Taxes) v Twickenham Film Studios Ltd Times, 07 October 2002; Gazette, 24 October 2002
27 Sep 2002
ChD
Lloyd J
Taxes Management
The inspector had issued an assessment under the section to recover a tax rebate incorrectly made to the tax payer. The taxpayer appealed. Held: The inspector claimed the repayment had been in error. The Act made that reclaim discretionary. The commissioners had decided that the reclaim was itself a mistake. However their decision which was expressed to be made 'on the facts' indicated that they thought themselves to have an appellate or reviewing jurisdiction. They did not. The discretion could not be exercised afresh.
Taxes Management Act 1970 30

 
H, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2164 (Admin)
23 Oct 2002
Admn
Stanley Burton J
Taxes Management, Evidence
The appellant sought judicial review of the seizure by the respondents of computers found on its premises in the course of executing warrants under the Act, even though the computers might contain other matters not relevant to any investigation. Held: It had been impossible to make arrangements at the appellant's home to copy the hard disks. The computers' hard discs were documents within the provisions, but the 1970 Act provided for seizure of 'any things whatsoever'. The computer was to be seen itself as a 'thing' rather than as a holder of files.
Stanley Burnton J considered that a computer could be a "document" for the purposes of the Taxes Management Act 1970 in which "document" is defined in the same terms as section 114(2) FA 2008: "For these reasons, even if I were free to do so, I would not differ from the conclusion reached by the Divisional Court in Da Costa. In any event, I do not think that Da Costa is distinguishable. While it is true that for the purposes of VATA a hard disk is a "document", it is equally a "thing", and in my judgment would be subject to a power of seizure in paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 11 to that Act even without the extended definition of "document"."
Taxes Management Act 1970 20C
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Patrick v Inland Revenue [2002] EWCA Civ 1649
25 Oct 2002
CA

Taxes Management
Appeal against penalty.
Taxes Management Act 1970 20(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) v Vicky Construction Ltd Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2659 (Ch); [2002] STC 1544
6 Dec 2002
ChD
Ferris J
Human Rights, Taxes Management, Construction
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. Held: The certificate itself would be a possession within the Convention, but the right to have it re-issued was not such a right in property. The requirement to deduct sums for tax did deprive the sub-contractors of a possession. However a state enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in taxation matters. An interference with property to ensure payment of tax could be justified. The provisions were not arbitrary or excessive, and need not be read down to make them compliant. The decision of the general commissioners was wrong and was set aside.
Ferris J said: "It became notorious during the latter part of last century that many sub-contractors engaged in the construction industry disappeared without settling their tax liabilities with a consequential loss of revenue to the Exchequer. In order to remedy that abuse Parliament enacted legislation going back to the early 1970s under which a contractor is obliged except in the case of a sub-contractor who holds a relevant certificate to deduct and pay over to the Revenue a proportion of all payments made to the sub-contractor in respect of the labour content of any sub-contract. The amount so deducted and paid over is in due course allowed as a credit against the sub-contractors liability to the Revenue. The need to make and pay over such deductions can be an irritation to the contractor obliged to carry out this exercise. It also adversely effects the cash flow of the sub-contractor. Accordingly it is advantageous to a sub-contractor to have a statutory certificate rendering such a deduction unnecessary. The provision of such a certificate tends to make the sub-contractor holding the certificate a more attractive party for the contractor to deal with and by enabling the sub-contractor to receive the contract price without deduction improves the sub-contractor's case flow.
The legislation which governs the present regime is now contained in sections 559 to 567 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The basic requirement is imposed by section 559. It imposes the general requirement on a contractor to make deductions from payments made to a sub-contractor and to pay over to the Revenue the amounts deducted. The current percentage required to be deducted is 18 per cent. The section also prescribes how such amounts are to be treated in the hands of the Revenue.
Section 561 provides an exception from the requirements of section 559. In the case of a payment made to a sub-contractor who holds a certificate under section 561 which is in force when the payment is made the issue of such a certificate is governed by section 561 itself. In order to be entitled to the grant of a certificate the taxpayer must satisfy certain conditions. In the case of a company the conditions are those set out in section 565."
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 561 565 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v DFS Furniture Company Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1708
6 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Mummery
VAT, Taxes Management

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 HM Inspector of Taxes v Veltema; ChD 10-Dec-2002 - Times, 02 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2689 (Ch)
 
Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, HM Inspector of Taxes [2002] STI 1809; [2002] EWCA Civ 1853; [2003] BTC 81; [2003] STC 66
13 Dec 2002
CA
Carnwath LJ
Corporation Tax, Taxes Management
The taxpayer entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of a gas pipeline, and sought to set off the costs as a capital allowance. Held: The company's appeal succeeded: "There is nothing in the statute to suggest that 'up-front finance' for the lessee is an essential feature of the right to allowances. The test is based on the purpose of the lessor's expenditure, not the benefit of the finance to the lessee."
1 Cites

1 Citers

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