Reed Employment Plc and Others v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 9 Apr 2014

UTTC INCOME TAX and NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – allowances for travel and subsistence costs- character of allowances – whether earnings under ITEPA Part 3 Chapter 1 – Yes – or sums treated as earnings under ITEPA Part 3 Chapter 3 – No – whether recipients had permanent or temporary workplaces – permanent – travel costs ordinary commuting expenses and not deductible – whether allowances within dispensations granted pursuant to ITEPA s65 -No – whether dispensations could lawfully be granted – No
JUDICIAL REVIEW – whether appellants had legitimate expectation that allowances would not be subject to income tax and NICs and that dispensations would not be revoked and HMRC would not seek income tax and NICs from employees retrospectively – No
Whether appellants under obligation as employers to make PAYE deductions in respect of allowances paid – Yes – appeal and judicial review application dismissed

[2014] UKUT 160 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Income Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525886

Cardazzone (T/A Mediterranean Ices) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Apr 2014

INCOME TAX – underdeclaration of takings – inadequacy of records – whether declared takings and other income insufficient to cover bank deposits and cash expenditure – agreed errors – presumption of continuity – appeal allowed

[2014] UKFTT 357 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525327

Hogg Joinery Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Mar 2014

PAYE – Late lodging of employer’s annual return – Late intimation of failure to submit returns for previous years – No penalty notices issued for previous years so no appeal- dispute over extent of telephone contact with HMRC – Whether reasonable excuse – Yes – Appeal allowed

[2014] UKFTT 286 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525263

White v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Feb 2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – self-employed flying instructor with office at home – travel between home and two airfields where he gave flying lessons – deductibility of travel expenses and telephone expenses – whether travel expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his self-employment – no – whether amounts assessed in relation to telephone expenses were excessive – no – whether discovery assessments were valid – yes – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 214 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525240

Barnes v Revenue and Customs: CA 30 Jan 2014

Appela against rejection of appeal against order that tax saving scheme was ineffective.
Held: The Scheme fails on the points decided by the UT, and that Mr Barnes’s appeal against the terms of the closure notice issued by HMRC is unsuccessful.

MacFarlane, Vos LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd
[2014] EWCA Civ 31
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520802

Inland Revenue v Edinburgh Life Assurance Co: HL 9 Dec 1909

The annuities granted by a life assurance company were charged upon the whole funds of the company. Its income from interest on investments, dividends, and rents was very much larger than the amount of the annuities, and without this branch of income there would have been a deficit instead of a profit on a year’s trading. The income from interest, dividends, and rents was taxed at the source, and the income tax so paid was more than if the company had been assessed on nett profits under Schedule D. In paying the annuities the company deducted the amount of the income tax due in respect thereof, which it retained.
Held that the company was not bound to account to the Inland Revenue for the income tax so deducted

Lord Chancellor Loreburn, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Gorell
[1909] UKHL 94
Bailii
Scotland

Income Tax

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.620598

RJ Herbert Engineering Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Dec 2013

FTTTX INCOME TAX – PAYE – penalties under Schedule 56, Finance Act 2009 – whether no liability for such penalties because – (1) the relevant late payments of PAYE were made during the currency of an agreement for deferred payment (para. 10, Sch 56, FA 2009) – found on the facts that 4 out of 6 of them were – or (2) because there should be a reduction to take account of special circumstances (para. 9 Sch 56 FA 2009) – held that the Tribunal would make no such reduction in relation to the remaining 2 penalties – or (3) because there was a reasonable excuse for the failure to make the relevant payments of PAYE on time (para 16 Sch 56 FA 2009) – found on the facts in relation to the remaining 2 penalties that no such reasonable excuse had been established – appeal allowed in part

[2013] UKFTT 753 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2009

Income Tax

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519643

Tl Watson (T/A Kirkwood Coaches) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Oct 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – PAYE – P35 annual return – electronic submission – whether HMRC’s email message amounted to confirmation of filing – no – no effective filing until after due date – penalty imposed – penalty confirmed
PROCEDURE – appropriate steps after receipt of summary decision – requirement to make request for full facts and findings before considering any possible further appeal
NATURE OF TRIBUNALS – independence from parties

[2013] UKFTT 553 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516917

Macklin v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Oct 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – UK-USA Double Tax Agreement SI 2002/2848 – whether pension income from the World Bank’s retirement scheme was eligible for relief from UK income tax as income from a ‘pension scheme established in’ the USA for the purposes of the Agreement – articles 17(1)(b) and 3(1)(o) considered – held the scheme was not ‘established in’ the USA because it was not established under and in conformity with the USA’s tax legislation relating to pension schemes
PROCEDURE – whether an assessment to recover tax repaid on the now-disputed basis that the income was eligible for relief under the Agreement was competent – section 29 TMA considered – held the assessment was competent as a discovery assessment and that the conditions in both s.29(4) and s.29(5) were satisfied – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 554 (TC), [2014] SFTD 290, 16 ITL Rep 355
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, International

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516906

Dagless Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Oct 2013

FTTTx PAYE – late submission of Employer’s Annual Return – whether scale of penalty is reasonable, and whether penalty is unfair and should be reduced – Decision of Upper Tribunal in Hok Ltd applies. Whether reasonable excuse for late submission of return – Yes.

[2013] UKFTT 545 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516892

Edit 123 (Television Facilities) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Sep 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalty – late payment of PAYE and NICs – FA 2009, Schedule 56 – whether payments made in time – reasonable excuse for late payment – no – whether any special circumstances existed to justify a reduction in the penalty amount – no – appeal dismissed.

[2013] UKFTT 511 (TC)
Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516295

Capital and National Trust Limited v Golder: 1949

The court asked as a question of principle as to whether Parliament ever intended to allow capital expenditure to be deductible as an expense against income.
Held: ‘the expenditure is something which if you were looking at profits and gains under Schedule D would be deductible as a sum of money wholly and exclusively expended for the purpose of making profits and gains.’

Croom-Johnson J
(1949) 31 TC 266
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCamas Plc v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 7-Jul-2003
An investment company sought to set against its liability to corporation tax, the various costs of taking over another company. They argued that as an investment company these were not costs of the purchase and could be set against tax.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.184470

HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (No 2): ChD 19 Jun 2009

The court was asked whether the taxpayer dermatologist could deduct the expenses of attending educational courses, conferences and meetings, including associated costs of travel and accommodation.
Held: She could.
The defendant requested anonymisation of the judgment – the extent to which the identity of the parties has already been revealed goes to the questions of what rights to privacy they still have and how effective the order is likely to be in preserving them.

Henderson J
[2009] EWHC 62 (Ch), [2009] STC 1930, [2009] 3 All ER 915, [2010] 1 WLR 800, [2009] STI 1962, [2009] BTC 323
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 198
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoHM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (1) ChD 19-Jun-2009
The taxpayer sought anonymity in the reporting of the case against her.
Held: No, she could not be given anonymity.
Henderson J said: ‘In determining whether it is necessary to hold a hearing in private, or to grant anonymity to a party, . .
Appeal fromHM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee CA 28-Jul-2010
The taxpayer doctor had claimed against her income tax, the costs of attending training courses required under her employment contract and for professional development. The Revenue appealed against a decision allowing the expenses.
Held: The . .
CitedMoney v AB ChD 10-Nov-2021
Anonymity – balance in favour of open justice
Ruling on an application by the Defendant for anonymity.
Held: Refused: ‘The mental health condition of the Defendant and the impact of the judgment on his family relationships are, therefore, relevant factors to take into account, but they do . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.347122

Cemal v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Aug 2017

(Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other) – INCOME TAX – Notice to taxpayer under Schedule 36 FA 2008 for private bank statements – appeal on grounds that all relevant information provided, private bank statements not being relevant – held private bank statements reasonably required by HMRC for checking taxpayer’s tax position – appeal dismissed.

[2017] UKFTT 628 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.592634

Reed v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Jan 2011

FTTTx INCOME TAX – schedule D – trade – deduction – expenses – building subcontractor – working at different building sites for successive short periods – cost of travel between home and site – appeal succeeds

Jennifer Trigger (Judge)
[2011] UKFTT 92 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.442829

The British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Mar 1964

The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory functions; it is not in any general way subject to statutory guidance. The traditional view of it is that it does not exercise a governmental function, and is therefore not subject to judicial review.
Counsel claimed for the government the right to grant a monopoly of broadcasting. LJ Diplock replied: ‘It is 350 years and a civil war too late for the Queen’s courts to broaden the prerogative. The limits within which the executive government may impose obligations or restraints upon citizens of the United Kingdom without any statutory authority are now well settled and incapable of extension. In particular, as respects monopolies the Crown’s claim to a general right to the monopoly of any activity was denied and circumscribed by the Statute of Monopolies, 1623. Today, save in so far as the power is preserved by the Statute of Monopolies, or created by other statutes, the executive government has no constitutional right either itself to exercise through its agents or to confer upon other persons a monopoly of any form of activity.’
and ‘The modern rule of construction of statutes is that the Crown, which today personifies the executive government of the country and is also a party to all legislation, is not bound by a statute which imposes obligations or restraints on persons or in respect of property unless the statute says so expressly or by necessary implication.’
As to whether a statute was binding on the Crown: ‘Since laws are made by rulers of the subjects, a general expression in a statute such as ‘any person’ descriptive of those on whom the statute imposes obligations or restraints is not to be read as including the ruler himself . . The modern rule of construction of statutes is that the Crown, which today personifies the executive Government of the country and is also a party to all legislation, is not bound by a statute which imposes obligations or restraints on persons or in respect of property unless the statute says so expressly or by necessary implication.’

Willmer LJ, Diplock LJ, Danckwerts LJ
[1965] Ch 32 CA, [1964] EWCA Civ 2, [1964] 41 TC 471, (1964) 43 ATC 38, [1964] 1 All ER 923, [1964] 2 WLR 1071, [1964] TR 45, [1964] RVR 579, [1964] 10 RRC 239
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
CitedOakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Dictum adoptedRevenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool Admn 21-May-2014
The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v Black CA 8-Mar-2016
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that the provisions prohibiting smoking in pubic places applied in prisons.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
CitedLord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181973

Staatssecretaris van Financien v Kieback: ECJ 18 Jun 2015

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of movement for workers – Tax legislation – Income tax – Income received in a Member State – Non-resident worker – Tax in the State of employment – Conditions

R. Silva de Lapuerta, P
C-9/14, [2015] EUECJ C-9/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:406
Bailii

European, Income Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.549236

Lomas and Others v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 11 Oct 2016

Receivers’ payment of statutory interest gross

Substantial sums were to be repaid to creditors after the administration of Lehman Brothers produced a substantial surplus. The sums were to carry interest and the court now considered whether the sums due amounted to ‘yearly interest’ under section 874.
Held: The statutory interest to be paid under Rule 2.88(7) is not ‘yearly interest’ within the scope and meaning of section 874, and thus no obligation to deduct tax arises.

Hildyard J
[2016] EWHC 2492 (Ch), [2016] WLR(D) 518
Bailii, WLRD
Income Tax Act 2007 874
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.570125

HM Revenue and Customs v Taylor and Haimendorf: UTTC 23 Nov 2010

UTTC Income tax – EIS relief – section 291B of ICTA – ‘Connected person’ – condition concerning loan capital – whether loan capital and share capital to be aggregated – whether share capital to be taken at nominal value or subscribed value

[2010] UKUT 417 (TCC), [2011] STI 258, [2011] STC 126, [2011] BTC 1501
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.428179

Revenue and Customs v Forde and McHugh Ltd: SC 26 Feb 2014

The Court heard a number of appeals concerned with the interpretation of the phrase in section 6(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, ‘[w]here in any tax week earnings are paid to or for the benefit of an earner’ It was asked as to the meaning of ‘earnings’ in that phrase The context is the payment of an employer’s contribution to a Funded Unapproved Retirement Benefits Scheme Until 2006 such schemes were commonly used to top up sums available through tax-approved pension schemes.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. The contributions made by it into a funded unapproved retirement benefits scheme in favour of one of its directors were not a part of the director’s ‘earnings’ for the purposes of section 6(1) of the 1992 Act and the company did not have to to pay national insurance contributions on the value of the contribution.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 14, [2014] STI 739, [2014] 1 WLR 810, [2014] WLR(D) 99, UKSC 2012/0162, [2014] Pens LR 203, [2014] 2 All ER 356, [2014] STC 724, [2014] ICR 403, [2014] BTC 8
WLRD, Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedTennant v Smith (Surveyor of Taxes) HL 14-Mar-1892
A Montrose bank manager had been given free accommodation in a bank house which he was required to occupy.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not charge income tax on the value of the accommodation because the employee could not convert the . .
CitedAbbott v Philbin (Inspector of Taxes) HL 21-Jun-1960
A company’s senior employees had been given an option to subscribe for its shares at the then current market price, the option being exercisable at any time within the next ten years. The employees were thus incentivised to increase the company’s . .
CitedHeaton v Bell HL 1970
The Revenue sought to tax the benefit of a car loan scheme and the issue was whether the emoluments of a participating employee fell to be assessed under Schedule E gross without reference to the weekly sum deducted by the employer for providing, . .
CitedDepositors’ Protection Board v Dalia HL 20-May-1994
The House was asked as to the meaning of the word ‘depositor’. Regulations were prayed in aid which were made four years after the date of the enactment.
Held: The protection given by the Depositor Protection Scheme does not extend to . .
CitedHanlon v The Law Society HL 1981
The House considered the impact of the statutory charge under the 1974 Act in matrimonial proceedings.
Held: The costs in respect of which the statutory charge bit were the costs of the whole divorce proceedings and not just the financial . .
At UTTCForde and McHugh v HM Reveue and Customs UTTC 21-Feb-2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – contribution to FURBS – whether liable for Class I contributions – no – appeal allowed. . .
Appeal fromHM Revenue and Customs v Forde and McHugh Ltd CA 30-May-2012
Sums paid by an employer, other than out of an employee’s salary, which were to provide contingent benefits to an employee, did not fall within the charge to NICs on earnings before the occurrence of the contingency and the payment of the benefits. . .

Cited by:
CitedRFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland SC 5-Jul-2017
The Court was asked whether an employee’s remuneration is taxable as his or her emoluments or earnings when it is paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Benefits

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.521991

Mariner v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Oct 2013

Taxpayer’s relience on professional adviser

FTTTx Income tax. Carlessness. Reasonable excuse. Reliance on a professional advisor. Wald v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 183 (TC) not followed. AB v HMRC [2007] STC (SCD) 99 followed and explained. No carelessness where taxpayer unaware of advisor’s carelessness/negligence – when advisor acts in a truly professional capacity and not as a mere functionary.

[2013] UKFTT 657 (TC), [2014] SFTD 504, [2014] WTLR 293, [2014] STI 588
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.518593

Wood v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2015

FTTTx Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Human Rights – INCOME TAX – preliminary issue – discovery assessments – extended time limits – ss 29 and 36 TMA 1970 – death of taxpayer – whether art 6 Human Rights Convention engaged – whether contrary to overriding objective in Tribunal Procedure Rule 2 to allow proceedings to continue

[2015] UKFTT 282 (TC)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Taxes Management Act 1970 29 36
England and Wales

Income Tax, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.549556

Swain and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Aug 2014

FTTTx Income Tax – Corporation Tax on capital gains – Whether a claim to add 60,000 pounds as enhancement expenditure to the deductible costs of some let real properties was valid, so occasioning a loss rather than a gain on a part disposal of the properties – Whether there was private use of two company cars available to and utilised by one or both of the directors of the company – whether the capital gains return was fraudulent, and the absence of any disclosures in relation to the asserted car benefits were at the very least negligent – whether penalties were justified and whether they should be adjusted – Appeals substantially disallowed, but allowed in respect of one car

[2014] UKFTT 778 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.535984

Ingenious Games Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Aug 2016

Losses for film production schemes

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Losses – Income Tax – LLPs engaging in the making of films and video games – whether trading; whether trading with a view to profit; what amount was incurred on the acquisition of rights in respect of films and games, and what amount was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of any trade; whether profits had been computed in accordance with GAAP.

[2016] UKFTT 521 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Media

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.567981

Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 24 Nov 1966

The taxpayer made a gift of shares to a trust set up to fund a medical professorship. The shares were in a private company, and an option was given for their repurchase once a certain level of dividends had been attributed to them. He was assessed to substantial surcharges on them on the basis that the arrangement was a settlement under which he retained an interest and of which he had not divested himself absolutely.
Lord Upjohn said: ‘If A intends to give away all his beneficial interest in a piece of property and thinks he has done so but, by some mistake or accident or failure to comply with the requirements of the law, he has failed to do so, either wholly or partially, there will, by operation of law, be a resulting trust for him of the beneficial interest of which he had failed effectually to dispose. If the beneficial interest was in A and he fails to give it away effectively to another or others or on charitable trusts it must remain in him’

Lord Reid, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan, Lord Wilberforce
[1966] UKHL 3, [1967] 2 AC 291, [1966] UKHL TC – 43 – 519
Bailii, Bailii
Income Tax Act 1952 411 415, Law of Property Act 1925 53
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedOughtred v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 4-Nov-1959
The taxpayer and her son owned through a trust the entire beneficial interest in the shares of a company. She agreed to transfer other shares to him in return for his interest in the shares subject to the trust, releasing the trust. The Revenue . .
CitedGrey and Another (Hunter’s Nominees) v Inland Revenue Commissioners; Orse Gray v IRC HL 2-Nov-1959
The House considered whether certain instruments which were presented for adjudication to stamp duty under section 13 of the Stamp Act 1891, are or are not chargeable with ad valorem duty.
Held: The word ‘disposition’ is to be given its . .
CitedAttorney General v Brown 1849
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoRe Vandervell’s Trusts (No 2) ChD 17-Jul-1973
The court considered the requirement that a proposed beneficiary must establish some positive act on the part of the person creating the trust for that person to be bound by the trust asserted. Megarry J said: ‘(1) If a transaction fails to make any . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.248562

Gilbertson v Fergusson: CA 1881

(1881) 7 QBD 562
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .
LimitedBarnes v Hely Hutchinson HL 1940
UK taxes had not been paid by the overseas company paying a dividend, but had been by the UK companies in which it held shares. The dividends received by the taxpayer were preference dividends rather than ordinary dividends, and were therefore paid . .
OverruledCanadian Eagle Oil Co Ltd v The King 1946
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573168

Strathalmond v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1972

The taxpayer’s wife was an American citizen resident for tax purposes in the United Kingdom. Because of her American citizenship, however, she was not resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Double Taxation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. Her husband was assessed to tax on her American dividends. The assessments were discharged on the ground that the dividends were exempted from United Kingdom tax by the Double Taxation Agreement.
[1972] 1 WLR 1511
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573171

Padmore v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1987

[1987] STC 36
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573172

Colquhoun v Brooks: 1889

A partner’s share of the profits of a foreign partnership, are to be treated as income from a foreign possession
(1889) 14 App Cas 493
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573165

Canadian Eagle Oil Co Ltd v The King: 1946

[1946] AC 119
England and Wales
Citing:
OverruledGilbertson v Fergusson CA 1881
. .

Cited by:
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573170

Barnes v Hely Hutchinson: HL 1940

UK taxes had not been paid by the overseas company paying a dividend, but had been by the UK companies in which it held shares. The dividends received by the taxpayer were preference dividends rather than ordinary dividends, and were therefore paid at a fixed rate, undiminished by the taxes paid by the UK companies.
Held: The taxpayer had been correctly assessed on the full amount of the dividend.
Notwithstanding the concept of ‘franked’ dividend income, the income received by the shareholder was not the same income as that of the company.
Lord Wright explained: ‘The English company is taxed on the balance of its profits or gains, that is on its income; the shareholder is taxed on his own income. The shareholder is never taxed on the company’s fund of profits, but only on the dividend which comes to him in payment of the debt which is created when the company declares the dividend. The tax is in every case on the individual’s income, not on a fund possessed by another person, the company, even though it is the fund of profits of that company, from which the individual’s income or part of it will be paid. … This principle must not be obscured by reason of the circumstance that in the way already noted, the dividend is treated as franked by the tax paid by the company. The fund which is taxed in the hands of the company and the dividend which is declared by the company in favour of the shareholder are separate items for taxation law. It is only the latter which is the shareholder’s income.’
Lord Wright
[1940] AC 81
England and Wales
Citing:
LimitedGilbertson v Fergusson CA 1881
. .

Cited by:
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.573169

Richardson (Inspector of Taxes) v Delaney: ChD 11 Jun 2001

An employer decided to end the employee’s employment and negotiated payment of a lump sum. The payment was within the terms of his employment contract. It was accordingly not a payment made to him in respect of a breach of the contract and was a taxable emolument. A payment in lieu of notice made under a right given under the contract was not paid in breach of it.
Lloyd J
Times 11-Jul-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 148
England and Wales

Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.88774

Rigby v Jayatilaka (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 21 Mar 2000

A notice issued by an inspector was not an agreement with the taxpayer. The tax inspector’s calculation of the taxpayers liability upon receipt of the self assessment form could not be sufficient top prevent later amendments to the self-assessment returns. The assessment calculated by the inspector was treated under the Act as a calculation carried out on behalf of the taxpayer, and what was claimed was, in effect an agreement with himself.
Times 21-Mar-2000
Taxes Management Act 1970 9
England and Wales

Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.88786

J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 24 Nov 2016

Important point of principle concerning the power of HMRC, to cancel the registration of a taxpayer for gross payment under the legislation which governs the Construction Industry Scheme.
Jackson, Christopher Clarke, Henderson LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1160, [2016] WLR(D) 630, [2016] STI 3058, [2016] BTC 45, [2017] STC 149
Bailii, WLRD
Finance Act 2004, Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTxJ P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Oct-2012
FTTTxp INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – whether properly exercised – Failure to take into account effect of cancellation . .
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd UTTC 13-Jul-2015
UTTC INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s 66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – scope of – whether properly exercised – failure to take into account effect of . .

Cited by:
At CAJP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.571935

Fowler v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Employment Income): FTTTx 13 May 2016

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Car made available to employee – whether benefit in light of Apollo Fuels Ltd: yes – whether capital contribution made: no – whether mileage allowance at 40p per mile due: no – disposition of appeal where repayment due reduced.
[2016] UKFTT 338 TC
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAnson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.564829

Koenigsberger v Mellor (Inspector of Taxes): CA 15 May 1995

External Lloyds name does not get retirement annuity relief on underwriting profit.
Ind Summary 15-May-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 619-1
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromKoenigsberger v Mellor (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-May-1993
Premiums which had been paid were not relevant earnings for annuity relief purposes. It was not income derived from the any trade or profession. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toKoenigsberger v Mellor (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-May-1993
Premiums which had been paid were not relevant earnings for annuity relief purposes. It was not income derived from the any trade or profession. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.82827

Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre (Horticulture): CA 31 May 1995

A ‘Planteria’ for the growing and storage of plants pending sale was premises, or a building, and not plant; no allowance was available. In considering the appeal, ‘the question for this Court, as it was for the Judge, is whether the facts found by the Commissioners are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the decision to which the Commissioners came or, if you prefer it in the other form, whether their decision is contradicted by the true and only reasonable conclusion from the facts found.’ As to the decision of whether an item constituted plant: ‘The essential question here is whether the structure which is the taxpayer’s planteria can reasonably be called apparatus with which their trade is carried on as opposed to premises in which it is carried on, it being established that a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of falling into the former category.
Nourse, Kennedy and Beldam LJJ
Times 31-May-1995, Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 19-Jun-1995, (1995) 67 TC 401
Capital Allowances Act 1990 22
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromGray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre Chd 10-May-1993
A glasshouse ‘planteria’ which was used to show plants in a garden centre, was premises and not plant for capital allowances purposes. . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd 1969
Even a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of being plant. In this case a dry dock was used in trade of ship builders, ship repairers and marine engineers. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toGray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre Chd 10-May-1993
A glasshouse ‘planteria’ which was used to show plants in a garden centre, was premises and not plant for capital allowances purposes. . .
CitedLingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.80986

Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes): CA 1 May 1995

A close company has an additional obligation to notify the Revenue that a loan was chargeable to tax, and in default, it was liable for interest.
Ind Summary 01-May-1995, Times 17-Mar-1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.80212

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby and Another: CA 6 Jan 1995

Anti-avoidance provisions do not catch a transfer of assets which were located abroad and which made at a time when the taxpayer was a non UK resident.
Gazette 08-Mar-1995, Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995, Times 06-Jan-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739-741
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed toInland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby HL 16-Jul-1997
Rules which disallowed exemption from tax for the transfer of assets abroad in order to avoid income tax do not apply where the taxpayer is not ordinarily resident here. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromInland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby HL 16-Jul-1997
Rules which disallowed exemption from tax for the transfer of assets abroad in order to avoid income tax do not apply where the taxpayer is not ordinarily resident here. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.82365

Williams v Singer and Others Pool v Royal Exchange Assurance: HL 17 May 1920

Under the Income Tax Act 1853, section 2, Schedule D, British trustees acting under the marriage contract of a French lady resident abroad were assessed in respect of income from foreign securities and possessions paid to her abroad. In the second case the respondents, who were domiciled in the United Kingdom, were trustees under a will, and were assessed in respect of the income of foreign investments paid to a Swedish lady also resident abroad. Held that as the beneficiary in each case was domiciled and resident abroad the income in question was not liable for income tax merely because the legal ownership of the investments was in British trustees.
Decision of the Court of Appeal (1919, 2 K.B. 108) affirmed.
[1920] UKHL 380, 59 SLR 380
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.631532

Hundal v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Jul 2018

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : INFORMATION NOTICES – notices to provide information and documents – whether items requested were reasonably required for the purposes of checking the Appellant’s tax position – yes – consideration of the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal in relation to information notices – appeal dismissed – appeals against penalties dismissed – applications for closure notices dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 469 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.622380

Re Hurren (a bankrupt): ChD 1983

There might have been a surplus after paying the debts due to the Inland Revenue (the major creditor).
Held: The way forward was for the trustee to agree the tax liability with the Revenue but only with the consent of the bankrupt. Walton J said: ‘So in substance it is really a question between the bankrupt and the Revenue with the trustee holding a watching brief to see that neither of them makes any fatal errors.’
Walton J
[1983] 1 WLR 183
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSingh v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 15-May-2010
UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.564437

Re a Debtor, ex parte the Debtor v Dodwell: ChD 1949

Harman J held that it was for the bankrupt’s trustee alone to settle with the Crown in a case where the bankrupt had been discharged and there was no tax assessment.
Harman J
[1949] Ch 236
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSingh v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 15-May-2010
UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.564436

Flood v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Apr 2013

FTTTX INCOME TAX – PAYE – Extra-Statutory Concession A19 – Underpayments of tax – Appellant with two employments – Subsequent adjustments to recover underpayments – Appellant’s claim to have received wrong coding instructions – Whether Tribunal can direct HMRC not to collect the underpaid tax – No – Tribunal has no authority to enforce compliance with Extra-Statutory Concession – Appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 251 (TC)
Bailii

Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.491858

Revenue and Customs v Tooth: UTTC 7 Feb 2018

INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – whether ‘discovery’ – whether insufficiency of tax brought about deliberately
The Honourable Mr. Justice Marcus Smith, Judge Charles Hellier
[2018] UKUT 38 (TCC), [2018] BTC 505, [2018] STI 1052, [2018] STC 824
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Tooth CA 15-May-2019
Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses. . .
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v Tooth SC 14-May-2021
Issues of general importance about the power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (in this context ‘the Revenue’) to make what is generally known as a discovery assessment. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.604789

Madras Electric Supply Corp Ltd v Boarland House of Lords: HL 11 Mar 1955

Income Tax, Schedule D – Balancing charge – Succession by Crown – Whether cessation provisions apply – Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Schedule D, Cases I and II, Rule 11 ; Finance Act, 1926 (16 and 17 Geo. V, c. 22), Section 32.
The Respondent Company carried on an electricity undertaking in Madras under several licences which all provided that on 29th August, 1947, the local authority or local government should have the option to purchase the undertaking. This option was exercised by the Madras Government who took possession of the undertaking on that date and thereafter carried it on.
A balancing charge was made on the Company for the year 1947-48 on the footing that on 29th August, 1947, the Madras Government succeeded to the trade within the meaning of Rule 11 (2) of Cases I and II of Schedule D; that accordingly the basis period for the assessment on the Company for that year was the period beginning 5th April, 1947, and ending 29th August, 1947; and that the sale of the Company’s undertaking occurred in that basis period. On appeal to the Special Commissioners, the Company contended that the person succeeding to its trade was the Crown; that Rule 11 (2) of Cases I and II of Schedule D had no application where the successor to the trade was the Crown or was not chargeable to Income Tax; and that the Company’s basis period for the year of assessment 1947-48 was therefore the preceding year, the year to 3Is/ December, 1946, and not the period in which the sale occurred. The Commissioners allowed the appeal, holding that the trade was carried on after 29th August, 1947, by the Crown and that the Crown was not a ‘person ‘for the purposes of Rule 11 (2).
Held, that ‘person ‘in Rule 11 (2) includes the Crown.
The House was asked whether the Crown was a ‘person’ for a particular purpose. While holding that the Crown was such a person, their Lordships reiterated the classic doctrine, Lord MacDermott and Lord Reid locating this as a rule of statutory construction rather than an aspect of the royal prerogative.
Lord MacDermott and Lord Reid
[1955] UKHL TC – 35 – 612, (1955) 34 ATC 53, [1955] 2 WLR 632, [1955] 1 All ER 753, 8 R and IT 189, 35 TC 612, [1955] TR 57, [1955] AC 667
Bailii
Income Tax Act 1918
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.601882

Smith v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Oct 2012

INCOME TAX – computation of profits – admitted understatement of profits in one year – discovery assessments raised for other years to make good understated profits – whether assessments justified – yes – onus of proof on taxpayer in relation to amount assessed – failure to produce adequate evidence to displace assessments – appeal dismissed and assessments confirmed
[2012] UKFTT 649 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.466234

Frost Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Oct 2012

PAYE – appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009- directors’ daughter diagnosed with terminal brain tumour in March 2010 and died in October – reasonable excuse for months 1-7 – unreliability of payments by clients not a reasonable excuse – penalty confirmed for other months
[2012] UKFTT 678 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.466208

Seacourt Developments Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Aug 2012

PAYE – NICs – CIS – assessments and determinations – best judgment – presumption of continuity – whether evidence to displace assessments and determinations
Penalties – PAYE and NICs – s 98A(4) TMA – whether taxpayer negligent in making incorrect returns – mitigation of penalties – Tribunal jurisdiction to increase penalties – s 100B(2)(b)
[2012] UKFTT 522 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.466124

Parker (T/A Comconsult) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Jul 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalty for late filing of Partnership return – section 12AA TMA 1970 – whether notice to file the return was given to the Appellant – held that the Appellant had failed on the balance of probabilities to show that it had not been given to him and that he had not shown that he had a reasonable excuse for the late filing – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 447 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.466051

Lauricella v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Jul 2012

FTTTx Income tax – overpayment of tax through PAYE system in 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 – claim for repayment made 17 March 2011 – time limits applicable – section 43 TMA or Schedule 1AB TMA – claim made out of time – no jurisdiction to require HMRC to apply ESC B41 – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 542 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.466040

Algarve Granite Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Jul 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – penalties – late payment of PAYE – penalties under Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – taxpayer unaware of new penalty regime – whether reasonable excuse – whether decision flawed because of failure to consider special circumstances – whether special circumstances – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 463 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.466022

De Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 2 Feb 2016

Arden, Gloster, Simon LJJ
[2016] BTC 6, [2016] EWCA Civ 40, [2016] STC 1333, [2016] STI 303
Bailii
Finance (No 2) Act 1992 42, Taxes Management Act 1970 12AC(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromDe Silva and Another v Revenue and Customs UTTC 15-Apr-2014
Film partnerships – partnership trading losses – inclusion of trading losses in partners’ self-assessment tax returns – claims to utilise those losses for carry back relief- means of challenge available to HMRC . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromDe Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 15-Nov-2017
The appellants had entered into certain partnerships designed to mitigate liability too income tax by creating trading losses through investments in films. HMRC rejected the claims. HMRC then sought to backdate adjustments to the carry-back claims . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.559419

De Silva and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 15 Apr 2014

Film partnerships – partnership trading losses – inclusion of trading losses in partners’ self-assessment tax returns – claims to utilise those losses for carry back relief- means of challenge available to HMRC
[2014] UKUT 170 (TCC)
Bailii
Finance (No 2) Act 1992 42, Taxes Management Act 1970 12AC(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromDe Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 2-Feb-2016
. .
At UTTCDe Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 15-Nov-2017
The appellants had entered into certain partnerships designed to mitigate liability too income tax by creating trading losses through investments in films. HMRC rejected the claims. HMRC then sought to backdate adjustments to the carry-back claims . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.525880

Cotter v Revenue and Customs: SC 6 Nov 2013

This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a tax return. He had submitted a tax return but then submitted amendments claiming for losses in the following year. The Revenue sought payment of the tax due under the unamended return by proceedings in the County Court. The taxpayer said that any such proceedings had to be in the First Tier Tribunal, because that Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to decide at what stage losses were to be allowed for in the amended return. The erevenue appealed aginst the decision that it must claim in the First Tier Tribunal.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The term ‘return’ refersdto the information in the tax return form which is submitted for ‘for the purpose of establishing the amounts in which a person is chargeable to income tax and capital gains tax’ for the relevant year of assessment and ‘the amount payable by him by way of income tax for that year’. Not everything put in the Tax return by the taxpayer need be in law part of the return. The actual question was whether the claim for losses entered into the return amounted to a defence to the Revenue’s claim for tax. As such that question could be answered in the County and High Courts. It was not an appeal against an assessment to tax for a particular year, which would have to go to the Tribunal.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2013] UKSC 69, [2013] BTC 837, [2013] 1 WLR 3514, [2013] STC 2480, [2013] STI 3450, [2014] 1 All ER 1, UKSC 2012/0062, [2014] 1 All ER 1
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Income Tax Act 2007 128
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAutologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
CitedBlackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling CA 21-Aug-2003
The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and . .
At ChDRevenue and Customs v Cotter ChD 14-Apr-2011
The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Cotter CA 8-Feb-2012
Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue . .

Cited by:
CitedDe Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 15-Nov-2017
The appellants had entered into certain partnerships designed to mitigate liability too income tax by creating trading losses through investments in films. HMRC rejected the claims. HMRC then sought to backdate adjustments to the carry-back claims . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.517445

Pardoe (Inspector of Taxes) v Energy Power Development Corporation: ChD 2 Mar 2000

Arrangements in the Acts to allow the revenue authorities to protect their position where payments were to be made overseas, by requiring the withholding of amounts equivalent to the tax payable, went as far as the Act expressly allowed, and no further. There is a substantial gap in such provision. No direction was available where there was only a prospect of anticipated future liability, rather than a present liability to make such a payment.
Times 02-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 775 776 777
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.84570

Patrick v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

Income tax -self-assessment – surcharge for late payment of tax – appeal based on assertion that tax for previous year overpaid – failure to follow procedures for that previous year – whether assertion provides Appellant with a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed.
[2012] UKFTT 390 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.462815

White v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Jun 2012

fTTTx INCOME TAX – Penalty – Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 – careless inaccuracy – prompted disclosure – whether inaccuracy careless – whether suspension of penalty appropriate – whether ‘special circumstances’ – interpretation of ‘special circumstances’ – whether HMRC’s decision flawed because of failure to a) consider whether there were special circumstances until after penalty determination made or b) give reasons for refusing to exercise its discretion regarding special circumstances – appeal allowed in part
[2012] UKFTT 364 (TC)
Bailii

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.462827

Slush Puppie Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 May 2012

Contract of employment or contract for services – no written terms – notice under section 8 of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 1999 – determination under regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 – appeals allowed
[2012] UKFTT 356 (TC)
Bailii
Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 1999, Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.462765

Owolabi v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 May 2012

FTTTx Income tax – Appellant sub-postmaster receiving termination payment on closure of sub-post office business – tax treatment of termination payment received- whether compensation in respect of capital outlay on setting up business and loss of revenue – no- whether appellant’s role as sub-postmaster was an ‘office’ for purposes of s5 ITEPA- yes – whether payment compensation for loss of office for the purposes of s401 ITEPA and taxable under s403 ITEPA – yes
[2012] UKFTT 334 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.462756

Ali v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Apr 2012

INCOME TAX – whether certain amounts credited to the Appellant’s bank accounts were, as the Commissioners alleged, taxable income from one or more unidentified sources – held on the evidence that the Appellant had discharged the burden of proof on her of showing that there were not – appeal allowed
[2012] UKFTT 289 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.462648