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: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Petition of Spring Salmon and Seafood Limited for Judicial Review [2004] ScotScotCS 39; Times, 22 March 2004
20 Feb 2004
OHCS
Lady Smith
Scotland, Taxes Management
The Inland Revenue began an investigation of the applicant's tax affairs. They objected that written notice had not been given, and that it had not been given at the company's registered office. Held: The Act contained sections requiring written notice to be given. This section required notification, which implied only communication of the intention, though noi doubt written notification would be usual. The Interpretation Act could not be used to require service at the registered office.
Interpretation Act 1978 115(2) - Finance Act 1998 Sch 18 p 24
[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Langham (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Veltema [2004] EWCA Civ 193; Times, 11 March 2004; [2004] STC 544
26 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lady Justice Arden
Income Tax, Taxes Management
The tax inspector had sought to re-open a tax assessment outside the time limit provided. He had discovered that a house had been given to the tax payer by his employers. The taxpayer said this had been discoverable from his self-assessment tax return. The inspector had been aware of the possible deficiency for more than 12 months, but had taken no action, and was now out of time. The inspector appealed against refusal of permission by the High Court after a similar refusal by the General Commissioners. Held: The purpose of the self-assessment scheme was to simplify and speed matters up, and worked on the assumption of honesty in the tax-payer. The tax payer had miscalculated, but without fraud or negligence. Nevertheless the inspector should be shut out from a re-opening only when he had received a clear indication of error and did nothing.
"[T]he key to the scheme is that the Inspector is to be shut out from making a discovery assessment under the section only when the taxpayer or his representatives, in making an honest and accurate return or in responding to a section 9A enquiry, have clearly alerted him to the insufficiency of the assessment, not where the Inspector may have some other information, not normally part of his checks, that may put the sufficiency of the assessment in question. If that other information when seen by the Inspector does cause him to question the assessment, he has the option of making a section 9A enquiry before the discovery provisions of section 29(5) come into play. "[A]pplying the proper statutory test, there was no basis upon which they could have found that the Inspector ought reasonably to have been aware, in the terms provided by section 29(5), of the insufficiency of the assessment on the basis of the information contained in Mr. Veltema's tax return " and the tax inspector's appeal was allowed. Leave was given to appeal to the House of Lords.
Taxes Management Act 1970 29
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Claimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue Commissioners Times, 10 March 2004; Gazette, 25 March 2004
3 Mar 2004
ChD
Park J
Litigation Practice, Taxes Management, Corporation Tax
Various claimants sought to have issues of law on group relief and other issues settled under a group litigation order. Held: The High Court had no jurisdiction to hear such matters until they had first been raised in ordinary tax appeals before the special or general commissioners. Courts do not decide questions of principle which went as to liability. Such questions were for the commissioners first. The application was refused.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Forthright (Wales) Limited v A L Davies (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2004] EWHC 524 (Ch); Times, 01 April 2004
18 Mar 2004
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
Taxes Management, Corporation Tax
The inspector disallowed a claim for enterprise investment relief, saying that not all the funds raised were to be used for a qualifying purpose. Held: The proceeds of a share issue had been used in part to pay a dividend. The issue did not qualify. The inspector's refusal yto authorise exemption was a decision refusing the claim, and gave rise to the same right sof appeal as a decision.
Taxes Management Act 1970 1A - Incom,e and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 306
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tom Hudson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v JDC Services Limited; ChD 26-Mar-2004 - Times, 16 April 2004; [2004] EWHC 602 (Ch)
 
Al-Fayed, Harrods Limited, Harrods (UK) Limited Harrods Holdings Limited and Others v Advicate General for Scotland and IRC [2004] ScotCS 112
11 May 2004
OHCS
Lord Reed
Taxes Management

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Loss Relief Group, Test Claimants In v Inland Revenue [2003] EWCA Civ 680; [2005] 1 WLR 52
28 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Longmore
Corporation Tax, Taxes Management
The taxpayers sought determination by the court of their various claims for group tax relief. The High Court had declined jurisdiction. Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge's attitude was one which would perhaps appeal to most lawyers experienced in tax matters if Community law considerations could be left out of account, but Community law obliges the High Court to entertain the claims. If a remedy was available through the commissioners, statute required the taxpayer to take their case before the commissioners.
Taxes Management Act 1970 30A
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 McCullough (HMIT) v Ahluwalia; CA 23-Jun-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 889; Times, 09 August 2004
 
Al Fayed v Advocate General for Scotland (Representing the Inland Revenue Commissioners) [2004] ScotCS 278; [2004] STC 1703; 77 TC 273
29 Jun 2004
SCS
Lord President, Lord Kirkwood, Lord MacLean
Taxes Management
The petitioners reclaimed against an interlocutor refusing their petition for judicial review of the refusal of the Commissioners to abide by an agreement reached with them. Held: The Revenue were permitted, in exercise of a managerial discretion, to resile from an agreement made with a taxpayer as to forward tax.
The Lord President, giving the judgment of the court, stated: "Parliament imposed tax on actual transactions. Since that was so, a compromise required to relate to actual transactions, for it was in relation to them that the respondents were entitled to collect tax. A forward tax agreement did not involve the taxation of taxable transactions that had occurred. It did not involve the agreement and collection of a compromise sum in relation to an existing liability to tax. It involved the agreement to pay and accept a fixed sum in respect of future transactions which might or might not occur. The sum was unrelated to the amounts involved in future transactions. It was arbitrary, and did not relate to the actual level of taxation which was due on transactions. It particularised the exact sum which was to be paid, but without the respondents having any inkling as to the actual level of taxable transactions."
As to back tax, however: "In that context they have power to arrange a compromise with the taxpayer, taking into account such factors as may be relevant."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Inland Revenue v Arkwright and Another [2004] EWHC 1720 (Ch); Times, 04 August 2004
16 Jul 2004
ChD
Gloster J
Inheritance Tax, Taxes Management
The deceased and his wife had held their property as tenants in common in equal shares. The Special Commissioner had assessed the interest of the deceased in the property at less than one half of the vacant possession value. Held: It was not part of the commissioner's job to reach any conclusion as to the value of the deceased's interest. Whether a purchaser would take into account the surviving wife's interests in setting his bid, was also a matter for the Lands Tribunal to decide upon proper evidence.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 161 225 - Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 1811) 23
[ Bailii ]
 
Austin v HM Inspector of Taxes [2004] UKSC SPC00426
18 Aug 2004
SCIT

Taxes Management
SCIT PENALTY - error in penalty notice on what the taxpayer had failed to do, in the amount of the daily penalty, and, for one year, the date of the notice that the taxpayer had failed to comply with - notices quashed - other penalties reduced
[ Bailii ]
 
Murphy v HM Inspector of Taxes [2004] UKSC SPC00434
20 Sep 2004
SCIT

Taxes Management
SCIT NOTICE under s.19 TMA 1970 – whether information reasonably required – yes – notice confirmed
Taxes Management Act 1970 19
[ Bailii ]
 
Murat, Regina (on the Application Of) v Inland Revenue [2004] EWHC 3123 (Admin)
25 Oct 2004
Admn

Taxes Management

Taxes Management Act 1970 19A
[ Bailii ]
 
Nerijus Baltrusatis v Byrne [2004] UKSC SPC00445
25 Nov 2004
SCIT

Taxes Management
SCIT NOTICE under S.19A TMA 1970 - irrelevant objection to the notice - notice confirmed
Taxes Management Act 1970 19A
[ Bailii ]

 
 Taylor v HM Inspector of Taxes; SCIT 9-Dec-2004 - [2004] UKSC SPC00448
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.