KPF Civil Building and Civil Engineering Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure – Application To Notify Appeal Out of Time): FTTTx 4 Sep 2018

Application to notify appeal out of time – whether burden of proof met to enable effective service of notice of appeal to be deemed – whether administration error in a professional firm a good explanation for the delay – whether respondents’ notices to extend time to carry out review relevant – application refused

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 531 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632307

Haughton v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Assessment/Self-Assessment): FTTTx 26 Sep 2018

Appeal against an assessment to recover an over-repayment of income tax following the failure by the Respondents properly to record information contained in a paper return -reliance placed on the terms of an extra-statutory concession and, more generally, on the behaviour of the Respondents’ officers and the fact that the repayment has been spent – jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal considered – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 560 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632302

Dumitrascu v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Profits): FTTTx 25 Sep 2018

INCOME TAX and NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – return amended by closure notice to remove most of deduction for payments to sub-contractors and all amounts said to have been suffered by appellant under the CIS scheme agreed not to have been suffered – whether deductions for payments made allowable – whether turnover should be reduced on account of fictitious CIS amounts deducted which were nevertheless added to turnover by the appellant – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 553 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632299

Roeen v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Penalty): FTTTx 6 Nov 2018

INCOME TAX – self assessment – late filing penalties – whether a Notice to File was served – yes – whether the Appellant was under a duty to file a return – yes – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for his delay – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 652 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632415

Benton and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 27 Sep 2018

Recusal application – whether a fair-minded and informed observed would conclude that there was ‘a real risk’ that my decision in this appeal might have a bearing on a case heard but not decided by the High Court – application refused.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 594 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632290

Webber v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : New Review On Facts): FTTTx 3 Nov 2018

EXCISE DUTY – seizure of imported tobacco – tobacco deemed condemned as forfeit – request for restoration of tobacco – application to strike out – application refused – whether the decision not to restore was reasonable – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 645 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632422

Giles v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 13 Sep 2018

EXCISE DUTY – assessments for duty and penalties in relation to excise goods seized from the appellant – Jones and Race considered – goods deemed to be for commercial use – penalties – no reasonable excuse – no special circumstances – penalties proportionate – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 536 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632301

CXO2 (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 17 Oct 2018

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Importance of first element
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Conceptual distinctions
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Imperfect recollection
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Well known mark claims
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Reputation
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Link
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Unfair advantage of repute
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Detriment to repute
Procedural Issues – Costs – litigants in person, actual, security for

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o65818

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.631670

Parsons v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Double Taxation): FTTTx 16 Aug 2018

INCOME TAX – repayment claims by non-resident – personal allowances s 56 ITA 2007 – claims under s 788 ICTA 1988 and s 6 TIOPA – whether reasonable excuse for late claims in some years – Raftopoulou applied – whether in date claims refused had been enquired into – Portland Gas and Raftopoulou considered.
INCOME TAX – penalties for late filing of returns – whether returns delivered before the due date.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 485 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632267

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another: CA 28 Mar 2018

The claimant R now appealed from a finding that its two patents involving transgenic mice were invalid. The ‘in situ replacement’ failed to comply.
Held: The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kitchin, LordJustice Floyd, Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 671

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another PatC 1-Feb-2016
The parties disputed the validity of K’s patented mouse. R said that the specification was insufficient to allow reproduction, and that it was therefore incomplete.
Held: The specification was insufficient, and the patents invalid. The issue . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd SC 24-Jun-2020
SC Kymab alleged that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The patents were . .
Main CA Judgment – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another CA 23-May-2018
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused. Other post judgment issues – form of order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Animals

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.608354