Regina v Allen: HL 11 Oct 2001

The defendant appealed against a finding that he had concealed an emolument, namely accommodation. He said that, as a shadow director of the company within the extended meaning of that phrase under the Act, the deeming provisions under Income Tax law did not apply. The defendant argued that a shadow director could not be an office holder, since he was neither appointed, and nor could he resign. Even if he was an office holder, the employment was not one under which income was assessable under Schedule E. To hold otherwise would make no distinction between benefits associated with the ownership of a company, and those attributable to employment within it, and ignore territorial limitations.
Held: Both arguments failed. It was clearly the intention of Parliament to collect tax in such situations, and the territorial limitations were explicitly recognised. The defendant argued that the notice requiring him to provide information which might lead to his prosecution breached the right of silence. He had had read to him the Hansard statement which was intended to encourage co-operation. No promise had been made, and it was not involuntary, and in an any event, the information provided was false.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote
[2001] UKHL 45, [2002] 1 AC 509, [2002] HRLR 4, [2001] 4 All ER 768, [2001] STC 1537, 4 ITL Rep 140, [2002] 1 Cr App Rep 18, [2001] BTC 421, [2001] STI 134, [2001] UKHL TC – 74 – 263
House of Lords, Bailii, Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 145, 154, 167(1), 167(2), 739(2), Taxes Management Act 1970 8(1) 20(1)
England and Wales
CitedFunke v France ECHR 25-Feb-1993
M. Funke successfully challenged his conviction for failing to provide documents which the customs authorities had demanded of him, on the grounds that his rights under Article 6 had been infringed: ‘The Court notes that the customs secured Mr. . .
Not followedRegina v Barker CCA 1941
In the course of investigating the defendant for tax faud, he was interviewed by the Inland Revenue. Relying upon a standard statement by the revenue, the appellant produced two ledgers which had been fraudulently prepared in order to induce the . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill CACD 31-Jul-2003
The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.166568