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

External Lloyds name does not get retirement annuity relief on underwriting profit.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-May-1995

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 619-1

Jurisdiction:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; 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.

Judges:

Nourse, Kennedy and Beldam LJJ

Citations:

Times 31-May-1995, Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 19-Jun-1995, (1995) 67 TC 401

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 22

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; 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.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-May-1995, Times 17-Mar-1995

Jurisdiction:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Corporation Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80212

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.

Citations:

[1920] UKHL 380, 59 SLR 380

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631532

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.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-1995, Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995, Times 06-Jan-1995

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739-741

Jurisdiction:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82365

In Re Mcguckian: QBD 12 May 1999

When applying ex parte to a special commissioner for permission to make an extended time tax assessment, an inspector need not disclose all the circumstances of the case, but only those which were necessary to allow the commissioner to judge whether there was a loss.

Citations:

Times 12-May-1999

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82052

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

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 469 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; 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.’

Judges:

Walton J

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 183

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; 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.

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1949] Ch 236

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Income Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; 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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 251 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; 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

Judges:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Marcus Smith, Judge Charles Hellier

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 38 (TCC), [2018] BTC 505, [2018] STI 1052, [2018] STC 824

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; 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.

Judges:

Lord MacDermott and Lord Reid

Citations:

[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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1918

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Constitutional

Updated: 27 November 2022; 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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 649 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466234

Metokote UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Sep 2012

TYPE OF TAX – PAYE -appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009- whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse because of postal delays – no- with the exception of one month appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 592 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466177

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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 678 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; 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)

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 522 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466124

Proctor v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Aug 2012

INCOME TAX-surcharge – second surcharge for late payment – Section 59C (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – time to pay arrangement – arrangement cancelled – whether appellant notified – whether reasonable excuse – status of unsupported statements in Statement of Case

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 530 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466121

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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 447 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; 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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 542 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; 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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 463 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466022

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

Judges:

Arden, Gloster, Simon LJJ

Citations:

[2016] BTC 6, [2016] EWCA Civ 40, [2016] STC 1333, [2016] STI 303

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance (No 2) Act 1992 42, Taxes Management Act 1970 12AC(1)

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 05 November 2022; 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

Citations:

[2014] UKUT 170 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance (No 2) Act 1992 42, Taxes Management Act 1970 12AC(1)

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.525880

Pflum v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Jun 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Section 26 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 – taxpayer had joint account outside the UK – Whether use by other joint account holder of debit card to make cash withdrawals or purchases in the UK were remittances by taxpayer to the UK – No – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 365 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462816

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.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 390 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; 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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 364 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; 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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 356 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 1999, Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; 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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 334 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462756

Verschueren v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Mar 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – self assessment – enquiry – closure notice disallowing claimed expenditure – discovery assessments raised for earlier years – whether evidence to support claim for greater level of expenditure – no – assessments to stand under s 50(6) TMA 1970 – whether discovery assessments appropriate – held, yes, on basis of assumed continuity – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 184 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462645

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

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 289 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462648

Metelerkamp v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Mar 2012

Income tax – surcharge for late payment of tax – whether HMRC’ s earlier repayment of payment on account a reasonable excuse – no – whether family member’s illness a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed and surcharge confirmed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 171 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462628

Blakemore v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Mar 2012

FTTTx INCOME TAX – self assessment – penalty for late submission of return – delay by HMRC in issuing activation code for online filing – whether reasonable excuse – held, on particular facts, yes – delay between receipt and use of activation code and submission of return – held excuse did not continue throughout period of default – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 217 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462599

Eurotex Trading Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Mar 2012

Section 98A(2) TMA 1970 – penalties for late submission of Employer’s Annual P35 Return – Appellant’s business had suffered financial difficulties – unable to pay accountants fees for dealing with Returns – whether reasonable excuse – no

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 172 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462608

Fawcett (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax Acts and Lancaster Farmers Auction Mart Company Limited: CA 4 Dec 1996

Auctioneers were required to report their trading returns to the Inland Revenue so as to show the income of the sellers.

Citations:

Times 27-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1093

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140960

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.

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 775 776 777

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.84570

Nichols v Gibson (Inspector of Taxes): CA 9 Jul 1996

A severance payment made after an employee had ceased to reside in the UK remained liable to tax under Schedule E.

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-1996

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 187

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromNichols v Gibson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Jan-1995
Income in the form of a termination payment, was taxable in the UK despite the fact that no duties had been performed in that tax year in the UK, and the payee had become a foreign resident. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.84297

Sutherland and Others v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes): CA 28 Feb 1994

One of several partners may appeal against the firm’s tax assessment without his partners’ approval.

Citations:

Ind Summary 28-Feb-1994, Gazette 13-Apr-1994, Times 04-Mar-1994

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 31 56

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSutherland and Others v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 17-May-1993
One partner may not appeal against an assessment to tax against the wishes of his or her partners. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89627

National Westminster Bank Plc and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 10 Jan 1994

Shares in Business Expansion Scheme were not to be treated as issued until they were entered in the company’s share register. The scheme was ineffective being a scheme to avoid Income Tax by financial manipulation.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Mar-1994, Times 10-Jan-1994, Ind Summary 24-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromNational Westminster Bank Plc and Another and Barclays Bank Plc and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 6-Aug-1993
A business expansion tax plan was valid if it was issued before the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. Shares were issued on the sending of the allotment letter, not when the shares came to be registered in the company’s books. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toNational Westminster Bank Plc and Another and Barclays Bank Plc and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 6-Aug-1993
A business expansion tax plan was valid if it was issued before the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. Shares were issued on the sending of the allotment letter, not when the shares came to be registered in the company’s books. . .
Appeal fromNational Westminster Bank Plc and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 24-Jun-1994
Shares are allotted to a person when that person acquires an unconditional right to be entered on a company’s register of members. The issue of shares only becomes complete after they are registered in the company’s books for the purposes of the BES . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Income Tax, Company

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.84209

Leonard v Blanchard (Inspector of Taxes): CA 16 Feb 1993

The court gave guidance on how an airline pilot whose earnings were in part obtained from services overseas should be taxed. The calculation should be made by calculating a ratio of earning days within the UK to those outside with a denominator of 365. Earnings for days when he was not working could not be treated as foreign earnings, and the exemption provided for this purpose should be read narrowly.

Citations:

Times 16-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, Apportionment Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83027

Gallagher v Jones (Inspector of Taxes) Threlfall v Same: CA 1 Jul 1993

Commercial Practice is to be followed in apportioning payments under a lease between different tax years. There is no requirement that expenditure must be charged to year it in which technically falls due, but tax accounts must not give a misleading picture of trading results.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Sep-1993, Ind Summary 26-Jul-1993, Times 01-Jul-1993, [1994] Ch 107

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 381

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromThrelfall v Jones Inspector of Taxes, Gallagher v Same ChD 1-Mar-1993
The taxpayer had acquired capital assets under a financing arrangement in which payments were spread over several tax periods. It was appropriate to treat those payments in according with normal accounting practice, rather than to seek to pull them . .

Cited by:

CitedRevenue and Customs v William Grant and Sons Distillers Ltd HL 28-Mar-2007
The Revenue appealed findings as to the calculation of profits for corporation tax. The companies had sought to deduct sums from profits for depreciation of unsold stock in accordance with current accounting standards.
Held: ‘the profit and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.80737

Atkins, The Executors of v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Jul 2011

Income Tax – Costs application by Appellant in a discovery assessment where the Respondents had withdrawn their assessment shortly before the date of the hearing – whether the assessment was likely to have been sustained had the appeal proceeded

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 468 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443157

Industrial Contracting Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 May 2011

Construction Industry Scheme – Cancellation of registration for gross payment (Finance Act 2004 s.66) – Whether there was a ‘reasonable excuse’ (Finance Act 2004 Sch 11 para 4(4)(a)) – Proportionality – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 290 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443050

Scofield v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Mar 2011

FTTTx Construction industry scheme — withdrawal of gross payment status — Finance Act 2004 – whether HMRC have discretion to withdraw gross payment status – whether discretion exercised – jurisdiction of Tribunal to review HMRC decision – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 199 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442946

Wald v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Mar 2011

FTTT INCOME TAX – Penalty for negligently delivering an incorrect tax return (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.95) – Whether omission from the tax return of relocation expenses paid by employer was negligent – Whether the penalty imposed was excessive – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 183 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442954

Rogers v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Mar 2011

FTTTx Income tax – employment income – whether receipt of shares was an emolument from employment within section 19 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 – whether an obligation to deduct PAYE under sections 203F or 203B Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Judges:

Brannan TJ

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 167 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442944

Mcmillin v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Jan 2011

Income Tax – Capital Allowances-furnished ‘eco’ holiday lettings -whether whole site can be plant – no -are specific items plant and machinery-stone floor – windows- paint and decorating-earth bund- no- appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 65 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442820

Cook (Inspector of Taxes) v Billings and Related Appeals: ChD 8 Jun 1999

Members of a partnership between them holding shares in a limited company, were not disqualified from claiming relief from tax under appropriate circumstances under the Business Expansion Scheme. Their separate interests were not to be aggregated because of the partnership.

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 291 (1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.79475

Tuczka v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 16 Mar 2011

Ordinary residence – whether this requires an intention to reside permanently or indefinitely – whether intention to stay for only 2.5 years precludes finding of ordinary residence – role of appellate tribunal where First-tier Tribunal finds ordinary residence

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 113 (TCC), [2011] BTC 1706, [2011] STI 1340, [2011] WTLR 1099, [2011] STC 1438

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440816

HMRC v First Nationwide: UTTC 18 Apr 2011

Stocklending agreement – deduction for management expenses in respect of manufactured dividends – para 1(1), Sch 23A ICTA – Income Tax (Manufactured Overseas Dividends) Regulations 1993 – whether dividends paid by a Cayman Islands company out of share premium account are ‘dividends’ and ‘overseas dividends’ – yes – ss 737A and 730A ICTA – whether a sale of preference shares and a subscription for preference shares is a sale and repurchase of securities – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 174 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440820

Smith v HMRC: UTTC 10 May 2011

Income Tax – Schedule D – computation of profits – section 42 FA 1998 – whether accounts prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice – sections 29, 34, 36 TMA 1970 – whether negligent conduct if accounts not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice – whether HMRC discovered tax loss

Citations:

[2011] UKUT B16 (TCC), [2011] STC 1724, [2011] UKUT 270, [2011] STI 2172, [2011] BTC 1742

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440826

D T E Financial Services Ltd v Wilson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 9 Nov 1999

A scheme involving the use of offshore discretionary trusts resulting in the payment of funds to the directors of the company from which the payments originated was not effective to exclude such payments from liability to tax. Overall the scheme had the characteristics of artificiality allowing all but one steps to be disregarded. Nevertheless the payment had been made by, in effect, a trustee for the company as an intermediary, and the payment was taxable.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1999, Times 09-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 203B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.79770

Bayfine UK v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 23 Mar 2011

The revenue appealed against the confirmation of the grant of double taxation relief to the taxpayer company. The Court was asked whether the UK company was entitled under article 23(2)(a) to a credit, to set against UK tax on its profits, in respect of the US tax which had been paid by its US parent on the same profits. The Commissioners submitted that domestic law did not apply to ‘source’ for the purpose of article 23, because article 23 contained its own comprehensive clause for defining ‘source’: it was a free-standing treaty concept which applied for all the purposes of that article. Held; The court accepted the submission.
Arden LJ said that ‘article 23(3) contains its own rule as to how source [is] to be determined, save where tax has been imposed on the basis of citizenship’.

Judges:

Arden, Pitchford, Tomlinson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 304, [2012] Bus LR 796, [2011] STI 1208, 13 ITL Rep 747, [2012] 1 WLR 1630, [2011] STC 717, [2011] BTC 242

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBayfine UK v Revenue and Customs ChD 23-Mar-2010
. .

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.

Income Tax, International

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430825

DJ Windsor and Co v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Aug 2011

FTTTx Income tax – PAYE – employer’s end of year return – penalty for late submission – whether attempted electronic submission successful – on facts, no – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 558 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.449486

Mellor v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Dec 2010

Whether expenses deductible as incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of trade – travel from home to sites to carry out trade as electrician – work done at home in connection with seeking work and preparing quotes – is home a place of business – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 29 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428216

K and N Drinks Logistics Ltd and Others v HMRC: UTTC 21 Dec 2010

UTTC INCOME TAX – Earnings from employment – Whether payment made on TUPE transfer to recognise loss of pension scheme benefits but also to ensure smooth transfer was ‘from employment’ – Whether capital payments could be taxable.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – Earnings derived from employment.

Citations:

[2010]UKUT 457 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Income Tax

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428183

P A Holdings: UTTC 7 Jul 2010

UTTC Income Tax – Tax avoidance scheme – Dividend from new company instead of bonus: whether Ramsay jurispudence applies – Schedule E and meaning of emoluments from employment – Schedule F and meaning of dividend or distribution – Class 1 National Insurance Contribution.

Judges:

Mr Justice Roth and Judge Charles Hellier

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 251 (TCC), [2010] BTC 1626, [2010] STI 2274, [2010] STC 2343

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCITPA Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 29-Aug-2008
SCIT The Revenue issued separate decisions that certain sums paid to employees of Holdings in the three years to April 2003 were emoluments liable to income tax under PAYE and earnings on which Holdings is liable . .
Appeal fromPA Holdings Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 7-May-2009
FTTTx Income tax – other – whether sums paid to individuals by a company as a dividend financed from a capital contribution to the company from employee benefits funds derived from the individuals’ employing . .

Cited by:

At UTTCHM Revenue and Customs v PA Holdings Ltd CA 30-Nov-2011
The company made available to certain employees discretionary annual bonuses which were paid instead by way of shares and received dividends. It now appealed against findings that the payments were taxable subject to Schedule F rates and were liable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428162

Grogan v HMRC: UTTC 21 Oct 2010

Income Tax – Transaction in securities – Contribution by Company to QUEST – Sale by controlling shareholder of shares to QUEST – Notice under ICTAs.703 to counteract tax advantage – Served after enactment of ITA 2007 – Alternative notice under ITA 2007, s.698 – Which notice effective – Whether tax advantage – Whether tax advantage a main object – yes – Appeal Dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 416 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428170