Stockler v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 22 Sep 2009

The taxpayer appealed against a decision confirming the Commissioners’ power to impose a penalty on him. It was said that his solicitors’ firm had negligently understated its profits. A settlement was proposed allowing a withdrawal of the return, which the claimant said was inconsistent with a penalty.
Held: There had been no error of law in the ruling appealed against. The appeal failed.
Sir John Lindsay
[2009] EWHC 2306 (Ch)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 30B 95A
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Nuttall CA 1990
The Revenue and the taxpayer had agreed that the latter should pay andpound;15,000 in consideration of the Revenue taking no proceedings against him for tax penalties or interest. The taxpayer paid only andpound;5,000 and the Revenue sought summary . .
CitedWH Cockerline and Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1930
Counsel had argued about the imposition of a penalty where no assessment had yet been made. Lord Hanworth MR said: ‘In language which was, perhaps, coloured by a warmth of feeling about it, he suggested that it was entirely wrong, and, indeed, made . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Woollen CA 1992
The taxpayer and three associated companies offered to the IRC an ‘investigation settlement agreement’. The amount agreed to be payable jointly and severally to IRC was not paid in full and the IRC obtained summary judgment for over . .
CitedKhan and another v First East Brixton General Commissioners and Inland Revenue Commissioners 1986
. .
CitedLam v Inland Revenue Commissioners 2006
. .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Matrix-Securities Ltd HL 1994
The House acknowledged the validity of pre-transaction rulings. Such rulings were of assistance both to the respondents and to the taxpayer. Lord Templeman referred to ‘[t]he trick of circular, self-cancelling payments with matching receipts and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.375133