The defendant provided financial services, including the provision of offshore companies for a co-defendant. They were used to secrete assets abroad. Misleading information was provided to the revenue by the applicant and others. They were charged with conspiracy. Only one charge remained effective, but it was argued that since, under s 739(2) that income was deemed, in any event, to be that of one of the defendants, but the case had been presented on the basis that it was the income of the companies which had been hidden. If the presumption against double taxation applied, it was not also the income of the company, and the prosecution failed. The Act contained separate definitions of Income Tax Acts and Corporation Tax Acts, and it was counter-argued that deeming provisions for the one, did not exclude the other. No such distinction could apply in this section. The double taxation possibility remained theoretical. The revenue was left with a choice as to how the income might be treated and taxed. That was argued to be a breach of the human right to enjoy one’s goods free of interference from the State. That discretion was held to be within the State’s margin of appreciation. The companies were liable to corporation tax, and the conviction stood.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hutton Lord Scott of Foscote
Citations:
[2001] UKHL 46
Links:
Statutes:
Finance Act 1936 36, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739 746
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Frank Adam Moran (Attorney General’s Reference No 25 of 2001) CACD 27-Jul-2001
The defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements, and cheating the public revenue by understating his profits as a market trader over a protracted period. The judge made a confiscation order equal to the amount of undeclared profit. On . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Taxes Management, Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166569
