The Leasing No 1 Partnership and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Apr 2014

CASE MANAGEMENT – witness statements – application by Respondents to exclude or recast parts of statement of witness of fact on grounds they are expert evidence or irrelevant – application refused

[2014] UKFTT 360 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525362

Chan and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Mar 2014

FTTTx APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO MAKE A LATE APPEAL – deliberate inaccuracy penalty – penalty paid and matter settled by agreement- taxpayer had uncommunicated reservation that his name would not be published as a deliberate defaulter – applied to appeal penalty when HMRC notified him his name was likely to published – permission refused;
APPLICATION FOR ANONYMISATION OF DECISION – wrong for tribunal to grant anonymisation in order to preserve reputation or to prevent taxpayer’s professional body discovering the imposition of penalty – position might be different where the hearing was merely interim – as permission refused hearing was final- in principle anonymisation should not be granted – anonymisation nevertheless granted pending any appeal – names to be published when appeal process exhausted

[2014] UKFTT 256 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525285

Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 12 May 2014

the powers and duties of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (hereafter ‘HMRC’) to disclose information about its export control functions to an NGO called Privacy International. That organisation has complained about the conduct of a UK company whom it is alleged has supplied ‘malware’ to repressive regimes (inter alia in Bahrain and Ethiopia) which has then been used for the covert surveillance of political activists. HMRC, in a decision taken on 9th January 2012 (the ‘Decision letter’), stated that it had no power to provide information about its investigations to Privacy International or to any third person, including victims of foreign regimes who used the company’s products for surveillance purposes. The issue arising is whether HMRC is correct to say that it has no power or duty to provide information and as to the correctness of the specific explanations it has (subsequently) given justifying that position. An important sub-issue is whether HMRC is required to inform a complainant of the decision it takes as to whether to prosecute or take no further action in respect of a complaint, bearing in mind that in principle decisions not to prosecute may be challenged by way of judicial review and that absent a communication of the decision taken and the reasons therefor a complainant will not know whether a decision has even been taken and will thereby be precluded from seeking to challenge that decision.

Green J
[2014] EWHC 1475 (Admin), [2014] BTC 25, [2014] WLR(D) 234, [2015] STC 948, [2015] 1 WLR 397
Bailii, WLRD
Commissioners of Revenue and Customs Act 2005
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525145

Lee and Others v Solihull Magistrates Court and Another: Admn 5 Dec 2013

The claimant challenged search warrants issued by the respondents, on the grounds first that the warrants were too wide in the description of the property which might be seized, that the description of property sought in the warrant was so wide that the Magistrates could not have been satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that such material was likely to be relevant evidence, and that the applicants for the warrant, Customs and Excise officers were seriously at fault in the failure to disclose relative materials to the request for the warrant.
Held: ‘the entry, search and seizure at both sets of premises was unlawful. The purpose of the mandatory requirement imposed by Section 15(6)(b) is to enable anyone interested in the execution of a warrant to know what are the limits of the power of search or seizure which is being granted. This is necessary so that such a person can be put in a position to enable him or her to challenge the lawfulness of the seizure of any particular item. Accordingly, it is now well established that the terms of the warrant must be precise and intelligible by reference exclusively to its own terms and not by reference to any other material.’
and ‘The execution of a search warrant at private or business premises is a significant invasion upon individual liberty. Parliament has rightly required that certain safeguards be put in place. Those safeguards are contained in Sections 15 and 16 of PACE 1984, and Section 15(1) specifically provides that a failure to observe the requirements of those sections will render the entry and search unlawful. I have no doubt that that is the case here.
It is to be observed that a failure or failures of compliance with the provisions of Section 15 or Section 16 do not render the warrant itself unlawful, but rather the entry on or search of premises.’
Grond 2 was not made out and ground 3 not purused.

Treacy LJ, King J
[2013] EWHC 3779 (Admin)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8(1)(c) 15
Citing:
CitedGlenn and Co (Essex) Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Jun-2010
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The . .
CitedBurgin and Purcell v Commission of Police for The Metropolis and Others Admn 13-Jul-2011
The applicants renewed the applications for leave to bring judicial review of decisions to seek and to issue search warrants, and later decisions to arrest them.
Held: When considering the validity of a search warrant the warrant as a whole . .
CitedAnand, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 9-Oct-2012
The claimant challenged the lawfulness of a search warrant issued for the respondent. The company had claimed Film Tax Relief, but the revenue had been unable to trace a supplier, and believed the invoice to be bogus.
Held: The warrants wer . .
CitedHoque and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 13-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of warrants issued at the request of the respondent, saying that they failed to comply with the requirements of section 15, and that no magistrate could reasonably have been satisfied that section 8 had been . .
CitedVan Der Pijl and Another v The Crown Court At Kingston Admn 21-Dec-2012
The claimants challenged search warrants and the seizure of materials under the warrants.
Held: The Court emphasised the need for precision within the warrant itself. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Taxes Management

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518792

Veolia ES Landfill Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Commissioners for Revenue and Customs: CA 16 Jul 2015

The court was asked whether there should be a stay of judicial review proceedings designed to establish whether the respondents had a legitimate expectation of being entitled to a repayment of tax, while proceedings to determine whether they were ever liable for the tax in the first place are heard and determined.

Arden, Black, Floyd LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 747
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.550354

Valentines Homes and Construction Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 31 Mar 2010

The claimant had applied for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to seek to recover a debt from them. The issue had however been settled in the County Court. Costs were ordered against them, and they now appealed. In a small company the chief manager and owner suffered a severe head injury, and his wife had failed to make PAYE payments. They said that HMRC had failed to respond to the details supplied and had pursued a sum which they ought to have known was incorrect.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the HMRC was ordered to pay the claimants costs, though in a reducded amount.
The court considered that the defendant’s equitable liability policy, if it ever applied, applied in this case: ‘I do not consider that it was an abuse of the process of the court or unreasonable for the appellants to resort to a public law claim in the prevailing circumstances. Despite the good sense and relevance of the equitable liability practice, HMRC had initiated, and despite all reasonable efforts by the appellants to settle for the sum actually due, persisted in their statutory claim for the amount deemed to be due. HMRC failed to respond to the appellants’ proposals for over four months, notwithstanding reminders. They were then supplied with detailed and, it appears, scrupulous, calculations of the sum actually due but persisted in a claim for the sum deemed to be due under Regulation 78.’

Pill, Moore-Bick LJJ, Sir David Keene
[2010] EWCA Civ 345
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Huntingdon District Council, Ex parte Cowan QBD 1984
The plaintiff sought judicial review of a refusal of a local authority to grant a liquor licence and a music and dancing licence. Review was sought despite a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.
Held: If other means of redress are . .
CitedWandsworth London Borough Council v Winder HL 1985
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the . .
CitedMercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another HL 10-Feb-1995
The Secretary of State’s decision on the grant of a Telecommunications licence was challengeable by Summons and not by Judicial Review. A dispute between Mercury and BT as to charges as set by the Director General is a private not a public dispute. . .
MentionedKay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
CitedPyx Granite Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1958
Pyx Granite had the right to quarry in two areas of the Malvern Hills. The company required permission to break fresh surface on one of the sites.
Held: Conditions attached to the planning permission relating to such matters as the times when . .
CitedAl Fayed v Advocate General for Scotland (Representing the Inland Revenue Commissioners) SCS 29-Jun-2004
The petitioners reclaimed against an interlocutor refusing their petition for judicial review of the refusal of the Commissioners to abide by an agreement reached with them.
Held: The Revenue were permitted, in exercise of a managerial . .
CitedPyx Granite Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government HL 1959
There is a strong presumption that Parliament will not legislate to prevent individuals affected by legal measures promulgated by executive public bodies having a fair opportunity to challenge these measures and to vindicate their rights in court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Taxes Management

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.406624

Marshall and Co v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 7 Mar 2016

UTTC Costs – settlement of case before First-tier Tribunal – whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 10(1)(b) – whether FTT erred in law in refusing appellant’s application for costs.

[2016] UKUT 116 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Taxes Management, Costs

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.562432

Autologic 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 other companies should proceed through the Commissioners who could implement European law directly. The taxpayers challenged their jurisdiction to hear certain claims.
Held: Where the Commissioners had jurisdiction, the taxpayers had an obligation to take their claims to the Commissioners.
Where the time limit for use of the statutory scheme had not expired, a taxpayer’s only way of challenging a taxing provision as contrary to European law was by making use of the statutory tribunal scheme, as opposed to judicial review.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said: ‘Underlying this conclusion is a point of general policy concerning cases where an applicant claims he has been wrongly deprived of benefits to which he is entitled under directly applicable provisions of Community law. Where Parliament has assigned to a specialist tribunal responsibility for adjudicating on disputes over the payment of such benefits, and an application to that tribunal is not time-barred, in the ordinary course the primary remedy for non-receipt of such benefits is to have recourse to that tribunal. That tribunal will give effect to the applicant’s rights under directly enforceable provisions of Community law as well as his rights under domestic law. The tribunal will afford him the benefits to which he is properly entitled. In such cases, where that course is still available to an applicant, claims in the High Court founded on an alleged breach of Community law will not normally be appropriate.’
Lord Millett said that ‘the computation of a taxpayer’s taxable profits for the purpose of determining his liability to tax is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the commissioners’
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe referred to: ‘the general principle embodied in tax law before self-assessment, that any dispute with the revenue about an individual’s liability to income tax or a company’s liability to corporation tax is to be determined in the first instance by the general commissioners or the special commissioners.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2005] UKHL 54, Times 01-Aug-2005, [2005] 3 CMLR 2, [2005] STC 1357, [2005] STI 1336, [2006] 1 AC 118, [2005] 3 WLR 339, [2005] 4 All ER 1141, [2005] BTC 402, [2006] Eu LR 131, 77 TC 504
Bailii, House of Lords
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedImperial Chemical Industries v Colmer ECJ 16-Jul-1998
A member state was not allowed to impose a tax regime which discriminated against the subsidiaries of a company based in that state where they were based in other member states, but discrimination was allowed where the subsidiaries were based . .
CitedMetallgesellschaft Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another Hoechst Ag and Another v Same ECJ 8-Mar-2001
The British law which meant that non-resident parent companies of British based businesses were not able to recover interest on payments of advance corporation tax, was discriminatory against other European based companies. Accordingly the law was . .
Appeal fromLoss Relief Group, Test Claimants In v Inland Revenue CA 28-May-2004
The taxpayers sought determination by the court of their various claims for group tax relief. The High Court had declined jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge’s attitude was one which would perhaps appeal to most lawyers . .
At first instanceNEC Semi-Conductors Limited and Other Test Claimants v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue ChD 24-Nov-2003
UK companies were subsidiaries of companies resident abroad, and complained that they were unable to make group income elections.
Held: The prohibition infringed non-discrimination provisions of double taxation agreements – non-discrimination . .
At First InstanceClaimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 3-Mar-2004
Various claimants sought to have issues of law on group relief and other issues settled under a group litigation order.
Held: The High Court had no jurisdiction to hear such matters until they had first been raised in ordinary tax appeals . .
CitedIn re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 1); Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others HL 15-Jul-1970
Practice – Parties – Joinder – Proceedings between subjects raising issues material to income tax – Joinder of Commissioners of Inland Revenue – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c.10), ss. 52 and 64 ; Income Tax Management Act . .
MentionedBarraclough v Brown HL 1897
The 1889 Act gave statutory undertakers who had incurred expenditure in removing a sunken vessel a right ‘to recover such expenses from the owner of such vessel in a court of summary jurisdiction.’ the undertakers began their action in the High . .
ApprovedGlaxo Group Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 21-Nov-1995
A tax adjustment can be made by the Inland Revenue on an open assessment following transfer pricing enquiry and direction, even after many years. The court considered that the jurisdiction of the special and the general commissioners to determine . .
At Special ComissionersMarks and Spencer Plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes) 2003
Marks and Spencer Plc appealed against the refusal of group relief, on the ground that the statutory limitations on the territorial scope of group relief were incompatible with, and overridden by, Community law. The Special Commissioners dismissed . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Factortame Ltd HL 18-May-1989
The applicants were companies owned largely by Spanish nationals operating fishing vessels within UK waters. The 1988 Act required them to re-register the vessels as British fishing vessels. The sought suspension of enforcement pending a reference . .
CitedAmministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA (No 2) ECJ 9-Mar-1978
ECJ The Court of Justice considered a reference for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to article 1977 of the Treaty, as having been validly brought before it so long as the reference has not been withdrawn by the . .
CitedImperial Chemical Industries Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) HL 18-Nov-1999
Where a group of companies sought consortium group relief, but the majority of the companies within the group were based outside the European Union, the court need not apply European Union standards to the test, but could instead apply the standards . .
CitedD v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst /Particulieren /Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (Free Movement Of Capital) ECJ 5-Jul-2005
ECJ Tax legislation – Wealth tax – Entitlement to an allowance – Separate treatment of residents and non-residents – Double taxation convention. . .
CitedDorsch Consult Ingenieursgesellschaft v Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH ECJ 17-Sep-1997
ECJ Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty – Definition – Body competent to hear appeals concerning the award of public . .
CitedSteenhorst-Neerings v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Europa Community law does not preclude the application of a national rule of law according to which benefits for incapacity for work are payable no more than one year before the date of claim, in the case where . .
CitedBrasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
CitedElsie Rita Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer ECJ 6-Dec-1994
Europa Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – Article 4(1) – Direct effect – National legislation limiting the period prior to the bringing of a claim . .
CitedInland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .
CitedAmon v Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd 1956
The court analysed the circumstances under which additional parties might be joined to an action by a defendant, applying a narrow interpretation. The court considered whether a defendant may be added against the parties’ wishes: ‘There are two . .
CitedPickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
CitedArgosam Finance Co Ltd v Oxby (Inspector of Taxes) CA 1965
A company which dealt in shares issued an originating summons in the Chancery Division requesting a declaration as to the correct method of computing its income for the purposes of loss relief. The revenue challenged the proceedings as an abuse of . .
CitedIn re Vandervell’s Trusts; Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others CA 1970
The deceased had sought to create a trust to benefit the Royal College of Surgeons. The parties disputed its tax effect.
Held: Lord Denning MR said: ‘We will in this court give the rule a wide interpretation so as to enable any party to be . .
CitedJean Reyners v Belgian State ECJ 21-Jun-1974
Europa The rule on equal treatment with nationals is one of the fundamental legal provisions of the community. As a reference to a set of legislative provisions effectively applied by the country of establishment . .
CitedLitster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd HL 16-Mar-1989
The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation . .
CitedWoolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
CitedRewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord Mbh Et Rewe-Markt Steffen v Hauptzollamt Kiel ECJ 7-Jul-1981
Europa The exemption provided for by regulation no 1544/69, as last amended by regulation no 3061/78, applies only to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from a non-member country. That . .
CitedEmmott v Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General ECJ 25-Jul-1991
Europa So long as a directive has not been properly transposed into national law, individuals are unable to ascertain the full extent of their rights. That state of uncertainty for individuals subsists even after . .
CitedKobler v Republik Osterreich ECJ 30-Sep-2003
The claimant’s claim had been presented to the Supreme Administrative Court in Austria, who had referred a question to the ECJ. Following the Schoning decision, the court withdrew the referral, and dismissed the claim. He now claimed damages from . .
CitedMarshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No 2) ECJ 2-Aug-1993
The UK law limiting awards of damages in sex discrimination cases is unlawful, and fails to implement European directive fully. Financial compensation must be at a level adequate to achieve equality between the workers identified. . .
CitedRoquette Freres SA v Direction des services fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais ECJ 28-Nov-2000
Europa In the absence of Community rules on reimbursement of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having . .
CitedRegina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Michael Bishopp (for and on Behalf of Partners In Price Waterhouse (a Firm)) Admn 18-Dec-1997
. .
CitedPeterbroeck, Van Campenhout and Cie v Belgian State ECJ 14-Dec-1995
It is a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the relevant European law right: ‘For the purposes of . .
CitedCriminal proceedings against Sanz de Lera and others ECJ 14-Dec-1995
Europa Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty, which prohibit restrictions on movements of capital between Member States and between Member States and non-member countries, on the one hand, and authorizing . .

Cited by:
CitedSharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2005
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
CitedBlackburn and Another v West Midlands Police CA 6-Nov-2008
The claimants, female police officers, complained that male officers had received priority payments where they had received none. The defendant said that the payments were justified in achieving a proper aim, namely the encouragement of night . .
CitedThe Bodo Community and Others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd TCC 20-Jun-2014
15,000 or more claimants and claims on behalf of children, sought damages at common law and statutory compensation under the law of Nigeria in relation to oil spills from pipelines said to have been caused by Shell Petroleum Development Company of . .
CitedCotter 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 . .
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 . .
CitedRevenue 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Taxes Management

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.229067

Aklagaren v Hans Akerberg Fransson: ECJ 26 Feb 2013

Aklagaren_FranssonECJ2013

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Field of application – Article 51 – Implementation of European Union law – Punishment of conduct prejudicial to own resources of the European Union – Article 50 – Ne bis in idem principle – National system involving two separate sets of proceedings, administrative and criminal, to punish the same wrongful conduct – Compatibility

V Skouris, P
C-617/10, [2013] EUECJ C-617/10, 15 ITL Rep 698, [2013] 2 CMLR 46, [2013] STC 1905
Bailii
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 51, European Convention on Human Rights P7

European, Human Rights, Crime, Taxes Management

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.471209

Conway v Rimmer: HL 28 Feb 1968

Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie

The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these were withheld on the ground of Crown privilege. The House considered that claim as to civil actions of documents and information in the hands of the police.
Held: The courts will give great weight to preserving the confidentiality of tax documents in the hands of the Revenue.
Lord Reid said: ‘The police are carrying on an unending war with criminals many of whom are today highly intelligent. So it is essential that there should be no disclosure of anything which might give any useful information to those who organise criminal activities.’ However: ‘I would therefore propose that the House ought now to decide that courts have and are entitled to exercise a power and duty to hold a balance between the public interest, as expressed by a Minister, to withhold certain documents or other evidence, and the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice. That does not mean that a court would reject a Minister’s view: full weight must be given to it in every case, and if the Minister’s reasons are of a character which judicial experience is not competent to weigh, then the Minister’s view must prevail. But experience has shown that reasons given for withholding whole classes of documents are often not of that character. For example a court is perfectly well able to assess the likelihood that, if the writer of a certain class of document knew that there was a chance that his report might be produced in legal proceedings, he would make a less full and candid report than he would otherwise have done. I do not doubt that there are certain classes of documents which ought not to be disclosed whatever their content may be. Virtually everyone agrees that Cabinet minutes and the like ought not to be disclosed until such time as they are only of historical interest. But I do not think that many people would give as the reason that premature disclosure would prevent candour in the Cabinet. To my mind the most important reason is that such disclosure would create or fan ill-informed or captious public or political criticism.’
As to the different positions of the law in Scotland and England, Lord Reid said: ‘But here we are dealing purely with public policy – with the proper relation between the powers of the executive and the powers of the courts – and I can see no rational justification for the law on this matter being different in the two countries.’

Lord Reid Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn
[1968] AC 910, [1968] 2 WLR 998, [1968] 1 All ER 874, [1968] UKHL 2
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDuncan v Cammell, Laird and Company Limited (Discovery) HL 27-Apr-1942
Relatives of deceased seamen claimed damages against the defendants after their husbands were lost a sea in a submarine built by the defendants. The Ministry of Defence instructed the defendants not to disclose any details of the boat’s . .
CitedMackalley’s case 1611
If an officer or magistrate is killed when executing a process or preserving the peace, the offence is murder and remains so even if there is some defect in the process being executed, or the arrest was being made at night.
Constables were . .
CitedFisher v Oldham Corporation KBD 1930
On Officer was subject to a claim for false imprisonment on an unlawful arrest, and it was asserted that the Watch Committee of the local authority were vicariously liable. The plaintiff pointed to his Oath of Office: ‘I . . . . . . . . . of . . . . . .

Cited by:
CitedLonrho Plc v Fayed and Others (No 4 ) CA 27-Oct-1993
Public interest immunity does not attach to documents in the hands of a taxpayer and his advisers. They are not in any event discloseable. (Bingham) ‘a claim made by the revenue to withhold documents relating to a taxpayer’s tax affairs from . .
CitedHome Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
CitedReclaiming Motion In Petition of Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue To Detain the Prisoner In Inhuman and Degrading Prison C SCS 18-Dec-2001
A prisoner sought an order for his removal from a prison found to have a regime which breached his human rights. The Crown replied that an order could not be made under s21 of the 1947 Act.
Held: The prisoner had followed through his rights to . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
CitedScience Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias HL 1-Nov-1979
Recent statutes had given redress to anyone suffering unlawful discrimination on account of race sex or trade union activities. An employee sought discovery of documents from his employer which might reveal such discrimination.
Held: The court . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
CitedArias and Others v Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police and Another CA 1-Aug-1984
A police officer searched premises under a warrant seizing documents of a trust corporation managed by the occupier. The trustees sought return of the documents or, alternatively, copies of them. The police believed that the documents were evidence . .
CitedAndrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
CitedIn re A (A Child) SC 12-Dec-2012
A woman, X, had made an allegation in confidence she had been sexually assaulted as a child. The court was asked whether that confidence could be overriden to allow an investigation to protect if necessary a child still living with the man. Evidence . .
CitedRegina v Lewes Justices ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rogers v Home Secretary HL 1972
The House considered a claim for public interest immunity.
Held: Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘the public interest which demands that the evidence be withheld has to be weighed against the public interest in the administration of justice that . .
CitedHaralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Constitutional, Police, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.184570

Jenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 16 Jun 1997

Legislation which created a clear anomaly can be interpreted so as to avoid the anomaly if the words used are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow an alternative construction.
Neuberger J discussed the case of Marshall v Kerr, saying: ‘It appears to me that the observations of Peter Gibson J, approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Marshall indicate that, when considering the extent to which one can ‘do some violence to the words’ and whether one can ‘discard the ordinary meaning’, one can, indeed one should, take into account the fact that one is construing a deeming provision. This is not to say that normal principles of construction somehow cease to apply when one is concerned with interpreting a deeming provision; there is no basis in principle or authority for such a proposition. It is more that, by its very nature, a deeming provision involves artificial assumptions. It will frequently be difficult or unrealistic to expect the legislature to be able satisfactorily to [prescribe] the precise limit to the circumstances in which, or the extent to which, the artificial assumptions are to be made.’
Neuberger J
Times 16-Jun-1997, [1997] STC 853
Finance Act 1989 138(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr CA 7-Apr-1993
A variation of trusts in Jersey will be deemed to have been made by the deceased – no Capital Gains Tax arising. Interpretation of deeming Provisions. The taxpayer was not a settlor in an overseas trust. Deeming provisions should not generally be . .
CitedMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr HL 30-Jun-1994
A settlor by will was deemed to have had an interest as funds were passed to a Jersey Trust. The section merely made or allowed that a variation of a will would not be a taxable event in UK law. It had no other effects. A deed of family arrangement . .

Cited by:
CitedHarding v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Lapsed Currency conversion option lost status
The taxpayer appealed his assessment to Capital Gains Tax on his redemption of loan notes arising following the sale of his computer company. He said that they were qualifying corporate bonds. The question was whether a security in which a currency . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.82512

HM Inspector of Taxes v Dextra Accessories Ltd: HL 7 Jul 2005

The taxpayer companies had paid funds into a trust for employees. They sought to set off the payments against their liability to corporation tax. The revenue argued that they were deductible only in the year in which they were paid to the employees.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal failed: ‘the whole of the funds were potential emoluments. They could be used to pay emoluments.’ The words ‘with a view to their becoming relevant emoluments’ apply both to the purpose for which amounts are held by an intermediary and also to the purpose for which they are ‘reserved in the account of an employer’. The taxpayer argued that relevant emoluments were contractually or constructively payable, whereas a reserve should properly be made for potential emoluments because they are payable only upon the occurrence of a contingency; for example, a bonus payable if a certain profit is achieved. If that was a correct description of potential emoluments for which a reserve has been made, it would be equally true to say that amounts held by an intermediary were for the payment of emoluments upon a contingency, namely the exercise of a discretion by the trustees. In both cases, the sums in question may or may not be used to pay emoluments but there is at least a realistic possibility that they will be. There may be some unfairness in this, but that unfairness had been confirmed by Parliament.
Lord Hoffmann stated that although a definition may give a word a meaning different from its ordinary meaning, the choice of words by Parliament should not be wholly ignored: ‘If the terms of the definition are ambiguous, the choice of the term to be defined may throw some light on what they mean’.
Lord Hoffmann considered the meaning of the defined term ‘potential emoluments’, said: ‘In the ordinary use of language, the whole of the funds were potential emoluments. It is true that, as Charles J pointed out, ‘potential emoluments’ is a defined expression, and a definition may give the words a different meaning from their ordinary meaning. But that does not mean that the choice of words adopted by Parliament must be wholly ignored. If the terms of the definition are ambiguous, the choice of the term to be defined may throw some light on what they mean.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2005] UKHL 47, Times 11-Jul-2005, [2005] STC 1111, [2005] BTC 355, (2003) 77 TC 146, 77 TC 146, [2005] 4 All ER 107, [2005] STI 1235, [2005] Pens LR 395
Bailii, House of Lords
Finance Act 1989 37 43, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 202A 202B
England and Wales
Citing:
At First instanceMacDonald (Inspector of Taxes) v Dextra Accessories Ltd and Others ChD 16-Apr-2003
The inspector sought to disallow charging to current tax period payments made by the employer to an employee benefit trust.
Held: The payments were not made and held by the trustees ‘with a view to becoming relevant emoluments’ within the . .
Appeal fromMacDonald (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Dextra Accessories Ltd and others CA 28-Jan-2004
The company had set up a trust for the benefit of its employees. The Inspector sought to tax the payments made into the trust as ’emoluments’
Held: The appeal was allowed. The payments were ‘potential emoluments’ which were held by the . .
CitedHeasman v Jordan 1954
Emoluments paid under an office or employment are taxed under Schedule E as income of the year of assessment in which they were earned, and it was irrelevant when they were paid. . .
Special CommissionersDextra Accessories Ltd and others v Inspector of Taxes SCIT 25-Jul-2002
SXIT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TRUST – whether deduction of contributions postponed until taxable as emoluments under FA 1989 s.43(11) – no – whether sub-funds in favour of directors who controlled the company taxable as . .

Cited by:
CitedBarclays Bank Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 11-May-2007
Retired bank employees had previously received free tax advice. When the service was withdrawn, the bank made a payment. The Revenue said that this payment was chargeable to income tax.
Held: The bank’s appeal failed. The payment was made ‘in . .
CitedRoutier and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Sep-2014
Executors appealed against rejection of their claim that a gift in the will qualified for relief against Inheritance Tax as being a charitable gift. The Trusts concerned assets in Jersey.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The expression ‘held on trust . .
CitedRoutier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 16-Sep-2016
Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of . .
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.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.228283

Revenue and Customs v Mayes: CA 12 Apr 2011

The court was asked whether a scheme (SHIPS 2) for obtaining relief from tax was made up of a pre-ordained, composite, artifical and tax-motivated events and could be disregarded for fiscal purposes.
If there are lacunas in a statutory regime which enable tax avoidance, a purposive interpretation may not always remove them
Mummery, Thomas, Toulson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 407, [2011] BTC 261, [2011] STI 1444, [2011] STC 1269
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedProject Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.432651

JP 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 registration for gross payment.
Held: The company’s appeal failed: ‘the company’s submission comes down to a short point: that is, given the existence of a discretion in section 66, it must in the absence of any specific restriction be treated as an unfettered discretion. That to my mind overlooks the basic principle that any statutory discretion must be exercised consistently with the objects and scope of the statutory scheme.’
Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 31, [2018] 1 WLR 3117, [2018] STI 1110, [2018] 4 All ER 95, [2018] STC 1394, [2018] WLR(D) 348, [2018] BTC 24, UKSC 2017/0016
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii ummary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 10 May 2018 am Video, SC 10 May 2018 pm Video
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 . .
At CAJ 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. . .
CitedShaw (Inspector of Taxes) v Vicky Construction Ltd ChD 6-Dec-2002
The General Commissioner had held that an inspector’s refusal to renew a certificate allowing the taxpayer construction company to pay its sub-contractors without deducting income tax, infringed that company’s rights. The inspector appealed.
CitedBarnes (HMIT) v Hilton Main Construction ChD 15-Apr-2005
The revenue had refused to renew the respondent’s certificate, and now itself appealed against the contractor’ success on appeal to the General Commissioners. . .
CitedDenley v Revenue and Customs UTTC 25-Aug-2017
Excise Duties . .
CitedRegina v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Hook CA 1976
The applicant applied to have quashed the decision of the local council to exclude him from trading in the market and to revoke his right to have a stall.
Held: He succeeded on the grounds that the decision had been taken in breach of the . .
CitedGasus Dosier-Und Fodertechnik Gmbh v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Feb-1995
Even where an interference in property rights involved the complete loss of a person’s economic interest in an asset for the benefit of the State, an absence of compensation might still be compatible with Article 1. ‘The Court recalls that the . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .
CitedThe National and Provincial Building Society, The Leeds Permanent Building Society And The Yorkshire Building Society v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Oct-1997
ECHR United Kingdom – applicants’ legal claims to restitution of monies paid under invalidated tax provisions extinguished under the effects of retrospective legislation (section 53 of Finance Act 1991 and . .
CitedAnimal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
CitedLindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.617856

Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Unilever plc: CA 1996

The Revenue had refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the taxpayer in the same form it had granted for over twenty years. The taxpayer complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new approach to late applications, brought in without any warning, was so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power, notwithstanding that the court accepted that the practice was not such as to engage the legitimate expectation doctrine.
The Commissioners are under a common law duty to treat taxpayers fairly, and not to discriminate without justification between taxpayers. It is not always a condition for a legitimate expectation to arise that there should be a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation by the public authority, the test is whether the public authority has acted so unfairly that its conduct amounts to an abuse of power.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘the categories of unfairness are not closed, and precedent should act as a guide not a cage’ and ‘These points cumulatively persuade me that on the unique facts of this case the Revenue’s argument should be rejected. On the history here, I consider that to reject Unilever’s claims in reliance on the time limit, without clear and general advance notice, is so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power’.
Simon Brown LJ said: ”Unfairness amounting to an abuse of power’ as envisaged in Preston and the other Revenue cases is unlawful not because it involves conduct such as would offend some equivalent private law principle, not principally indeed because it breaches a legitimate expectation that some different substantive decision will be taken, but rather because either it is illogical or immoral or both for a public authority to act with conspicuous unfairness and in that sense abuse its power. As Lord Donaldson MR said in R v ITC, ex p TSW: ‘The test in public law is fairness, not an adaptation of the law of contract or estoppel’.’
and ‘on the one hand mere unfairness – conduct which may be characterised as ‘a bit rich’ but nevertheless understandable, and on the other hand a decision so outrageously unfair that it should not be allowed to stand.’
Simon Brown LJ, Sir Thomas Bingham MR
[1996] STC 681
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Unilever Plc and Others QBD 12-Sep-1994
The Inland Revenue is to notify taxpayer of a change in acquiescence in practice to late payment. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 18-Jun-2003
The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife’s death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent . .
CitedRowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
Dictum AdoptedRegina (On the Application of Bajram Zeqiri) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2001
The applicant’s case had been delayed to allow a test case as to whether Germany was to be treated as a safe country for the return of asylum seekers. Before the test case appeal was abandoned, circumstances changed so as to allow certification of . .
CitedRashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
AppliedRegina v The National Lottery Commission ex parte Camelot Group Plc Admn 21-Sep-2000
The Commission had considered bids tendered in open competition to run The National Lottery. Neither of the two candidates who entered bids was considered to have satisfied all the criteria necessary to be given the relevant licence. The Commission . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham and Others), Regina (on The Application of) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance and Others Admn 13-Feb-2013
Judicial review was sought of the changes to the marking systems for GCSE English in 2012.
Held: The claim failed. Though properly brought, the failure was in the underlying structue of the qualification, and not in the respondent’s attempts . .
CitedGallaher Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Competition and Markets Authority SC 16-May-2018
Extent and consequences of duties of ‘equal treatment’ or ‘fairness’, said to have been owed by the Office of Fair Trading to those subject to investigation under the Competition Act 1998. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.184333

Revenue 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 deceased for the purpose of investigating whether he had died as a result of an industrial disease. The Commissioner sought judicial review of the decision to issue those notices and asserted that the 2009 Act, which did not expressly bind the Crown, did not do so by necessary implication either. The Revenue said that compliance with the notice would pt them in breach of their own duties of confidentiality under the 2005 Act.
Held: Schedule 5 to the CJA 2009 binds the Crown by necessary implication. It follows that the Notices constituted an ‘order of court’ within s.18(2)(e), CRCA 2005, binding on HMRC. It follows further that the duty of confidentiality flowing from s.18(1), CRCA 2005 was displaced and HMRC was entitled to comply with the Notices.
Gross LJ, Burnett J
[2014] EWHC 1586 (Admin), [2015] 1 QB 481, [2014] 3 WLR 1660, [2014] WLR(D) 226
Bailii, WLRD
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, European Convention of Human Rights 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Dictum adoptedThe 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 . .

Cited by:
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 . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.526075

Incite Out Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Oct 2012

Appeal against the penalty imposed for the late payment of PAYE- Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009– whether lack of a specific warning or knowledge of the penalty regime was a reasonable excuse-no-whether penalty disproportionate or unfair -no-appeal dismissed and penalty confirmed
[2012] UKFTT 680 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.466213

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

Padmore v Inland Revenue Commissioners (No 2): ChD 8 Feb 2001

The taxpayer sought double taxation relief in respect of partnership profits earned in Jersey. Two sections appeared to be in direct contradiction. The earlier section had been superceded by the 1988 Act which was a consolidating Act. Consolidating legislation was intended to be read without reference to earlier legislation wherever possible save only in the case of ambiguity or obscure or absurd. The general rule in favour of double taxation agreements was here subordinated to a rule in 62.
Gazette 08-Feb-2001, Times 21-Feb-2001
Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
England and Wales

Updated: 20 April 2021; Ref: scu.84531

X v Staatssecretaris Van Financien: ECJ 18 Oct 2012

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Fiscal legislation – Obligation on the recipient of a service, established in the national territory, to withhold at source the wages tax on the remuneration due to a service provider established in another Member State – No such obligation in respect of a service provider established in the same Member State
C-498/10, [2012] EUECJ C-498/10
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionX v Staatssecretaris Van Financien ECJ 21-Dec-2011
Opinion – Freedom to provide services – Obligation on the resident recipient of a service to withhold tax at source from remuneration if the service provider is resident in another Member State – Discrimination – Restriction – Grounds of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 April 2021; Ref: scu.465024

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

British Steel Plc v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Customs and Excise: CA 20 Dec 1996

The claimant company paid excise duty on hydrocarbon oil used in its blast furnaces, whilst consistently contending that it was entitled to relief under section 9(1) of that Act on the ground that the oil was not used as fuel. The Commissioners rejected that contention. The claimant brought an action against the Commissioners claiming restitution of the excise duty which it had paid on the basis that it qualified for relief, and that the Commissioners’ demands for payment of the duty had accordingly been unlawful.
Held: ‘So there are, in my opinion, two points for decision on this appeal. First, if relief from duty under section 9(1) was unlawfully refused, does it follow that the demands for duty under section 6 were unlawful? Second, if the demands for duty were unlawful, can a common law action for restitution be brought or is the payer restricted to such repayment remedy as may be available under section 9(4)?’ and ‘If the demands by the commissioners for excise duty to be paid on the hydrocarbon oil to be delivered to British Steel’s blast furnaces were unlawful demands, it would follow, in my opinion, from the decision of the House of Lords in [Woolwich] that whoever paid the duty would have a common law restitutionary right to repayment. . . In the present case, it is contended that the commissioners’ demand for excise duties was unlawful because the commissioners had made an error in deciding that the use of the oil in the British Steel blast furnaces was not a ‘qualifying use’ and, consequently, had wrongly refused to grant relief from duty under s 9(1). I have yet to examine whether that premise justifies a conclusion that the demands were unlawful; but, if it does, I can see no reason why the principle expressed by Lord Goff should not apply. . . An unlawful demand for duty must, in a sense, always be an ultra vires demand. Whether the demand is based on ultra vires regulations, or on a mistaken view of the legal effect of valid regulations, or on a mistaken view of the facts of the case, it will, as it seems to me, be bound to be a demand outside the taxing power conferred by the empowering legislation. If, for any of these reasons, a demand for tax is an unlawful demand, it seems to me to follow from the speeches of the majority in [Woolwich] that the taxpayer would, prima facie, become entitled, on making payment pursuant to the unlawful demand, to a common law restitutionary right to repayment. The empowering legislation in question, or other legislation, might remove the taxpayer’s common law right to repayment. That would depend on the construction of the Act or Acts in question. . . In the present case, if the demands for excise duty were unlawful, the payer would, in my judgment, have a prima facie common law right to repayment. . . I would not construe s 9(4) as removing that common law right. First, the common law right is not expressly removed. Second, s 9(4) does not purport to constitute a comprehensive statutory scheme for recovery of excise duty paid but not due. If duty were demanded and paid on oil that did not correspond to the description of ‘hydrocarbon oil’ in ss 1 and 2, s 9(4) would not enable recovery to be claimed. The common law claim would be the appropriate means of redress. If prospective relief under s 9(1) had been granted but, unlawfully, duty had none the less been demanded and, perforce, paid, s 9(4) would not apply. The common law claim for restitution would be the means of redress. Third, s 9(4) assumes, implicitly, that the excise duty has been paid pursuant to a lawful demand. It is expressed to deal with a situation in which prospective relief could have been given under s 9(1) but, for some reason or other, has not been given. Prima facie, if prospective relief has not been given under s 9(1), duty will have been properly demanded under s 6. . . . For these reasons, if British Steel has an arguable case that the demands for payment of excise duty were unlawful demands, I would not be willing to strike out its action on the ground that s 9(4) had removed the common law right of recovery.’
Millett LJ: ‘What the appellants have done is to seek to obtain retrospective relief by bringing private law proceedings in restitution to recover duty unlawfully demanded of them by a public authority. They can do this if (i) the demand for payment of the duty was unlawful and (ii) the private law remedy is not excluded by the statutory regime: see [Woolwich]. They have no difficulty with the second of these requirements: the statutory regime established by s 9(1) and (4) is not comprehensive; it is limited to persons who possessed the necessary approval at the relevant time, and the appellants did not. But while this enables the appellants to satisfy the second requirement, it creates an insuperable obstacle in the shape of the first. The commissioners’ demand for duty was not unlawful: they were authorised to demand the duty by the combined effect of s 6 of the 1979 Act and s 43(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Section 9(1) of the former Act authorised them to permit the release of oil from bond to an approved person, but they had no power to permit its release to the appellants, even if they were intending to put it to an intended use, unless they could show that they had been approved.’
Sir Richard Scott VC, Saville LJ, Millett LJ
[1996] EWCA Civ 1272, [1997] 2 All ER 366
Bailii
Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 6(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedInland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.141140

Heavy Woollen Branch Club and Institute Union Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

Penalty – Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late Employer’s P35 End of Year Return – Appellant thought Return had been filed on-line – further delays despite reminders – no reasonable excuse
[2012] UKFTT 391 (TC), [2012] UKFTT 391 (TC)
Bailii, Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.462802

Stewart v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

Section 98A(2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – late Employer’s P35 End of Year Return – Appellant says had difficulty obtaining on-line activation PIN from HMRC – whether reasonable excuse shown for period of default – whether affected by delay in penalties imposed by HMRC – no
[2012] UKFTT 393 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.462820

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.
Times 27-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1093
Taxes Management Act 1970 13
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.140960

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.
Ind Summary 28-Feb-1994, Gazette 13-Apr-1994, Times 04-Mar-1994
Taxes Management Act 1970 31 56
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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.89627

Atlantic Electronics Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 May 2011

CASE MANAGEMENT – Exclusion of evidence and admission of late evidence – Principles applicable – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 WLR 1038, HL applied – Need for balancing exercise
[2011] UKFTT 314 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At FTTTxHM Revenue and Customs v Atlantic Electronics Limited UTTC 26-Nov-2012
UTTC APPEAL AGAINST DIRECTION – First-tier Tribunal refusing to admit certain evidence – whether refusal a reasonable exercise of discretion – no -appeals allowed and decisions re-made – principles to be taken . .
At FTTTxHMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd UTTC 6-Feb-2012
UTTC COSTS – Transitional appeal – Appeal by HMRC against direction under Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009, Sch 3, para 7 for 1986 applying 2009 Rules to the proceedings – . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.443018

PVC Fascia Company v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2010

FTTTx Sub-contractors in the construction industry – Failure to make deductions from payments to sub-contractors – HMRC not satisfied payments taken into account on sub-contractors returns – determinations to pay amount not deducted – whether determinations in correct amount – amount partly reduced – insufficient evidence for further reduction – Appeal allowed in part – Regulation 13 of the Income tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005
[2011] UKFTT 17 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 March 2021; Ref: scu.428201

Capital Air Services Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 12 Oct 2010

PROCEDURE – allocation to categories – Complex case – appeal from categorisation from decision of First-tier Tribunal categorising case as Standard – decision re-made by Upper Tribunal categorising case as Complex – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
[2010] UKUT 373 (TCC), [2010] BVC 1574, [2011] STI 413, [2010] STC 2726
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 March 2021; Ref: scu.428168

Revenue and Customs v BPP Holdings Ltd and Others: UTTC 3 Oct 2014

PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order
Judge Bishopp
[2014] UKUT 496 (TCC), [2014] BVC 544, [2015] STC 415
Bailii
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBPP University College of Professional Studies v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Jul-2014
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. . .
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Cited by:
At UTTCBPP Holdings v Revenue and Customs CA 1-Mar-2016
HMRC had been debarred from further participation in the proceedings. BPP provided training courses, and the issue was as to the chargeability to VAT of books supplied between companies in the group. In the proceedings, HMRC repeatedly failed to . .
At UTTCBPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.539403

Fairburn and Others (T/A Cobbler) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Nov 2010

Partnership return, section 12AA Taxes Management Act 1970 (‘TMA’) – late filing penalty, section 93A TMA – filing paper return after both paper and electronic deadline – failure of HMRC to provide free software for electronic filing of partnership return – appeal dismissed
[2010] UKFTT 536 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 02 March 2021; Ref: scu.426655

Scofield v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Aug 2010

FTTTx Construction industry scheme — withdrawal of gross payment status — whether reasonable excuse — held no — whether HMRC have discretion to withdraw gross payment status – jurisdiction of Tribunal to review HMRC decision — direction for appeal to be relisted for further argument.
[2010] UKFTT 377 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.422364

Moore v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2010

FTTTx Discovery assessments and amendment to returns – Whether negligent in completing and filing incorrect returns – Yes – Appeal dismissed – s. 29 Taxes Management Act 1970 – Penalties – Whether correct amount – Appeal allowed in part – s 95 Taxes Management Act 1970
John Brooks TJ
[2010] UKFTT 271 (TC)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales

Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.422278

Pinnacle Office Equipment Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 May 2010

VALUE ADDED TAX RETURN – failure to furnish return – misdeclaration – failure to pay tax due – reasonable excuse – reliance on any other person – reliance on employed accountant – accountant responsible for late payment and misdeclaration – whether accountant’s ill health reasonable excuse for default – Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 71 – appeal dismissed.
[2010] UKFTT 211 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.422239

Huntingwood Trading Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 21 Jan 2009

Application for judicial review of a decision by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dated 25th April 2007 to disallow 101 claims made by the claimant, Huntingwood Trading Limited, in respect of excise duty drawback totalling andpound;1,263,865. The two grounds on which the claimant sought judicial review were first that the commissioners had engendered in the claimant a legitimate expectation that a certain course of action would be followed in relation to the making and paying of drawback claims; and that it is unfair and an abuse of power for the Commissioners to frustrate that legitimate expectation by refusing to make the payments.
Stadlen J
[2009] EWHC 290 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 February 2021; Ref: scu.420984

Atec Associates Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Jul 2009

FTTTx PROCEDURE – Application to reinstate – Earlier Direction dismissing appeal given under Old Rules in absence of Applicant or any representative – Subsequent hearing under Old Rules to determine whether earlier Direction should be set aside – No attendance by Applicant – Earlier Direction remained in being – Further Application to reinstate made after coming into force of New Rules – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction – No – Application dismissed – ‘Old’ Trib Rules r.26(3) – SI 2009 No.56 (‘New’ Trib Rules) r.38.
[2009] UKFTT 178 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408999

Mutch v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Jul 2009

FTTTx GROSS PAYMENT STATUS – Compliance test – Cancellation – Carpentry Business hit by drop in orders -Insufficient cash to pay tax liabilities on due dates – Whether reasonable excuse – Yes – Appeal allowed – Finance Act 2004 Schedule 11 para 4 (4).
[2009] UKFTT 288 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2004
England and Wales

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.409008

Bruns (T/A TK Fabrications) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2010

FTTTx CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – Cancellation of registration for gross payment – whether compliance failure of which account could be taken in cancelling registration – held no – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for compliance failure – held yes – appeal allowed
[2010] UKFTT 58 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408916

Revenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another: CA 2 Feb 2010

The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could re-open the assessments, but the taxpayer was able to set off the expense as a capital allowance.
Arden, Scott Baker and Moses LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 32, [2010] STC 809, [2010] BTC 154, [2010] STI 435
Bailii
Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales
Citing:
At SCITTower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs SCIT 19-Jul-2007
SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional . .
Appeal fromTower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Oct-2008
The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the . .

Cited by:
At CARevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.396485

Society of Industrial Management System v Belgian State: ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ Opinion – Direct Taxation – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital tax treatment of an unusual or gratuitous advantage granted by a resident company to a company having its seat in another Member State in respect of which the first company is in links interdependence – Preservation of a balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States fight against abusive practices
C-311/08, [2009] EUECJ C-311/08 – O
Bailii
Cited by:
OpinionSociety of Industrial Management System v Belgian State ECJ 21-Jan-2010
ECJ Freedom of establishment Free movement of capital Direct taxation Income tax legislation ‘ Determination of the taxable income of companies ‘ Companies having a relationship of interdependence ‘ Unusual or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.374770

Touch Logistics v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Mar 2009

FTTTx Default surcharge/ poor performance of financial controller/late payment by 2 substantial customers/clawback by bank on factored payments/ overdraft facility reduced/concession by Respondents at hearing for rescheduling of 2 Vat payments – appeal dismissed
[2009] UKFTT 33 (TC)
Bailii

Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.373592

Deadman Confidential Partnership v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Apr 2009

FTTTx PENALTY DETERMINATION – Failure to comply with notice under section 20 to produce bank statements – s98(1)(b)(i) and s100C TMA 1970 – andpound;300 penalty determined
NOTICE UNDER s19A TMA 1970 – Whether reasonable to have made it – Yes – Appeal dismissed
CLOSURE APPLICATION – Enquiry – Conclusion dependent on outstanding notices under s19A TMA 1970 – Application dismissed
[2009] UKFTT 76 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.373603

Regina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill: CACD 31 Jul 2003

The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. At such interview admissions are accepted as a basis for settling civil liabiity, but expressly excluding compromise of any criminal action.
Held: The IR statement that the Code of Practice did not apply at this stage was incorrect. Plainly the officers suspected serious crime, and any practice allowing them to obtain evidence without first cautioning the defendant was wrong. However the admission of the evidence would not have had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to have admitted it. The judge had adequately directed the jury as to the defendants domicile.
Mr Justice Astill Lord Justice Clarke The Common Serjeant
[2003] EWCA Crim 2256, Times 29-Aug-2003, Gazette 02-Oct-2003
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 105, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code C s66
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Barker CCA 1941
In the course of investigating the defendant for tax faud, he was interviewed by the Inland Revenue. Relying upon a standard statement by the revenue, the appellant produced two ledgers which had been fraudulently prepared in order to induce the . .
CitedRegina v Allen HL 11-Oct-2001
The defendant appealed against a finding that he had concealed an emolument, namely accommodation. He said that, as a shadow director of the company within the extended meaning of that phrase under the Act, the deeming provisions under Income Tax . .
CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
CitedAllen v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Sep-2002
The court rejected as inadmissible an application challenging admissibility of evidence obtained from him by the Revenue either by compulsion or inducement.
Held: ‘The Court notes that in this case the applicant does not complain that the . .
CitedRegina v Okafor CACD 10-Nov-1993
The appellant, a Nigerian national, arrived at Gatwick Airport from Nigeria with a single item of luggage, namely a suit carrier. He was asked a number of questions, in particular whether he had packed the luggage himself and whether everything in . .
CitedRegina v Absolam CACD 1990
A was arrested. He was already on bail for possession of cannabis, and in the hope finding further evidence he was asked to empty his pockets, ‘and put the drugs on the table’ he did so and admitted selling drugs.
Held: The procedure should . .
CitedRegina v Grannell CACD 1990
The complainat had seen the burglar/defendant, noted his car number and later identified the car to the police. He identified the defendant from a group identification, but the codes of practice were not followed.
Held: Though the Codes had . .
CitedRegina v Delaney CACD 11-Jan-1990
Delaney was 18 and with a low IQ. On first interview for indecent assault, he denied the offence, but later came to admit it. The police admitted first minimising the seriousness of the offence, but he alleged greater pressure, resulting in a later . .
CitedRegina v Quinn CACD 15-Mar-1994
Police must follow the published Code of Practice, when conducting identity parades, and may not substitute their own. If the evidence is allowed in despite the breach, the judge should explain the significance of the breach to the jury, as it may . .
CitedHan and Yau t/a Murdishaw Supper Bar, and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 3-Jul-2001
The applicant claimed that proceedings under which he had been accused of fraud in dishonestly evading VAT liability were in reality criminal proceedings and that the minimum standards of a fair trial applied.
Held: The characterisation under . .
CitedHenderson v Henderson 1967
The court considered what was required to establish a domicile at law: ‘First, clear evidence is required to establish a change of domicile. In particular, to displace the domicile of origin in favour of the domicile of choice, the standard of proof . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.184914

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd: HL 14 Mar 1994

The applicant had obtained what it thought to be clearance from the Revenue for a complex scheme, whose effectiveness depended on whether investors would qualify for capital allowances. The Inspector initially gave a favourable assurance, but that was subsequently withdrawn.
Held: The taxpayer’s application failed. A tax clearance certificate was properly withdrawn for a failure by the taxpayer to make a full disclosure.
Lord Jauncey refered to Lord Templemen’s dicta in the Preston case and said: ‘I take from these passages (i) that the court may properly review a decision of the Revenue to exercise it’s statutory powers if the decision is so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power although the court has a discretion to refuse relief even if such decision does not savour of such abuse…’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: ‘It is now established that, in certain circumstances, it is an abuse of power for the Revenue to seek to extract tax contrary to an advance clearance given by the Revenue. In such circumstances, the taxpayers can by way of judicial review apply for an order preventing the Revenue from seeking to enforce the tax legislation in a sense contrary to the assurance given (see Preston -v- IRC [1985] AC 835). But the courts can only restrain the Revenue from carrying out their duties to enforce taxation obligations imposed by legislation where the assurances given by the Revenue make it unfair to contend for a different tax consequence, as a result of which unfairness the exercise of their statutory powers by the Revenue would constitute an abuse of power (see [1985] AC 835 at 864 per Lord Templeman). It is further established that if the taxpayer, in seeking advance clearance, has not made a full disclosure of the relevant circumstances, the Revenue are not acting unfairly, and therefore are not abusing their powers, if they go back on an advance clearance which they have only given in ignorance of the relevant circumstances (see [1985] AC 835 at 867 per Lord Templeman, and R -v- IRC, ex p MFK Underwriting Agencies Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545’.
Lord Griffiths: ‘In this case the local tax Inspector made a bad mistake. He gave clearance to a scheme proposed by Matrix Securities which Lord Templeman has exposed as a manifestly impermissible tax avoidance scheme. Although the letter of 15 July 1993 in which Matrix put the scheme to the Inspector was not expressed as clearly as it might have been, I have no doubt that if the Inspector had read it carefully he would have realised either that it was a tax avoidance scheme or at the very least it should be considered by the special list division of the Inland Revenue before clear answer was given. In either case he should not have given his clearance.
. . . I wish however to add a word of a more general nature to the issue that has arisen in the appeal. It is part of the human condition that people will make mistakes, but they must not be held to mistaken decisions if the mistake is discovered in time to take effective remedial action. In the present case the specialist unit discovered the mistake made by their tax Inspector and gave immediate notice to Matrix that they could not approve the scheme before any money had been invested by the public in the scheme. In these circumstances even if the Inspector had been the right person to submit the secheme to in the first instance, and even if the scheme had been clearly set out it would be wholly wrong to hold the Revenue to the mistaken clearance and allow the scheme to go ahead at a cost of some 38 million pounds of lost Revenue to the national exchequer. It is one thing to hold the Revenue to a clearance that has been acted upon in good faith, but quite another to permit the correction of an error before it has been acted upon.
If however Matrix had been entitled to rely on the clearance given by the Inspector and had spent money in promoting the scheme before the clearance was withdrawn, then it seems to me that fairness demands that Matrix should be reimbursed for this out of pocket expense and it could be regarded as an abuse of power for the Revenue to refuse to do so. This point does not have to be decided in this appeal but I mention it because this aspect of the argument only surfaced towards the end of the hearing and the Revenue strenuously resisted any liability to compensate Matrix in such circumstances.’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey, Lord Griffiths
Ind Summary 14-Mar-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 334, [1994] STC 272
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd CA 10-Nov-1993
The withdrawal of a scheme approval after non-disclosure by the taxpayer was not an abuse of power by the Commissioners. . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston HL 1984
The applicant was assured by the Inland Revenue that it would not raise further inquiries on certain tax affairs if he agreed to forgo interest relief which he had claimed and to pay a certain sum in capital gains tax.
Held: Where the . .
At First InstanceRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd QBD 22-Oct-1993
A tax clearance was properly withdrawn because of non-disclosure. There was no abuse by the Revenue. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Beatrix Potter School ex parte Kanner Admn 20-Dec-1996
The applicant’s child had been offered a place by the respondent. The offer was withdrawn.
Held: The school when deciding was entitled to look to the need for efficiency in education. On appeal, the committee may go against that need. The . .
CitedChurchhouse, Regina (on the Application of) v Inland Revenue Admn 4-Apr-2003
The taxpayer was a revenue informer one whose trade is described by Coke as ‘viperous vermin [who] under the reverend mantle of law and justice instituted for protection of the innocent, and the good of the Commonwealth, did vexe and depauperize the . .
CitedABC Ltd v Inspector of Taxes SCIT 20-Jul-2001
SCIT CAPITAL ALLOWANCES – Purchase by a UK company of plant and machinery from XYZ, a non-UK corporation – Lease back by the company to XYZ – Sublease by XYZ to a subsidiary UK company – Various security . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.86935

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd: QBD 22 Oct 1993

A tax clearance was properly withdrawn because of non-disclosure. There was no abuse by the Revenue.
Times 22-Oct-1993
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd CA 10-Nov-1993
The withdrawal of a scheme approval after non-disclosure by the taxpayer was not an abuse of power by the Commissioners. . .
At First InstanceRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Matrix Securities Ltd HL 14-Mar-1994
The applicant had obtained what it thought to be clearance from the Revenue for a complex scheme, whose effectiveness depended on whether investors would qualify for capital allowances. The Inspector initially gave a favourable assurance, but that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.86937

Tower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 13 Oct 2008

The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the re-opening of the assessments was allowed. Henderson J set out also why he would have allowed the taxpayer’s appeal as to the claimaing of the allowance.
Henderson J
[2008] EWHC 2387 (Ch), [2008] BTC 805, [2008] STI 2249, [2008] STC 3366
Bailii
Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromTower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs SCIT 19-Jul-2007
SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another CA 2-Feb-2010
The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could . .
At ChDRevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 February 2021; Ref: scu.276838

Tower MCashback Llp1 and Llp2 v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 19 Jul 2007

SCIT Capital expenditure on software – whether HMRC can raise additional contentions in an appeal beyond those indicated in the Closure Notice – whether expenditure was incurred pursuant to an unconditional contract – whether the expenditure paid 10 months after the date of the contract was still paid under a contract that required payment within a four month period, or whether the eventual payment was under a varied contract – whether one of the Appellants had commenced trading before the end of the tax year 2003/2004 – whether the value of the software was broadly in line with the capital expenditure ostensibly given by the LLPs in which the Appellants were members – how to analyse the transaction for capital allowance purposes if the value of the acquired asset was materially lower than the price paid initially for the asset with the support of non-recourse loans – Appeal by LLP1 dismissed and appeal by LLP2 dismissed in part.
Mr Howard Nowlan
[2007] UKSPC SPC00619, [2008] STC (SCD) 1
Bailii
Capital Allowances Act 2001 45, Taxes Management Act 1970
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromTower Mcashback Llp and Another v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Oct-2008
The court considered the availablilty of a first year allowance for the full first year expenditure on software licence agreements. The revenue sought to bring new points on appeal.
Held: The LLPs’ appeals on the procedural issue as to the . .
At SCITRevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another CA 2-Feb-2010
The taxpayer had sought to set off the entire cost of software licences against tax in the year of purchase, and challenged the re-opening of tax assessments after their closure by the Revenue. The Revenue appealed.
Held: The Revenue could . .
At SCITRevenue and Customs v Tower MCashback Llp 1 and Another SC 11-May-2011
No re-opening after closure notices
The taxpayer had purchased software licences (SLA), and set out to claim the full cost against its tax liabiilities under the 2001 Act in the first year. The taxpayer said that after the Revenue had issued closure notices, it was not able to re-open . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 February 2021; Ref: scu.259275

Morris and Another v Revenue and Customs: ChD 23 May 2007

The court heard an appeal against a preliminary decision of the Special Commissioners about two issues of principle which affect forthcoming appeals against assessments to self-assessments made by the Respondent Commissioners against them. The two issues are: (a) whether the time limit imposed by section 34 of the 1970 Act (‘TMA’) applies to closure notices under section 28A(2) TMA so as to amend the taxpayers’ returns containing the self-assessment of their liability to CGT for the year 1997/98; and (b) whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) as applied by the Human Rights Act 1998 to the taxpayers’ appeals against the penalty determinations under s.95 TMA alters the burden of proof in relation to the appeals against the other assessments and notices which are listed for hearing at the same time but do not themselves involve any element of penalty.
Patten J
[2007] EWHC 1181 (Ch)
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 28A 34 95, European Convention on Human Right 6
England and Wales

Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.252515

Argosy Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners: PC 8 Feb 1971

(Guyana) The word ‘best’ when used to refer to the judgment of a tax officer making an assessment of tax due, rather than implying a higher than normal standard, is a recognition that the result may necessarily involve an element of guesswork. It means simply ‘to the best of (their) judgment on the information available’
Lord Donovan
[1971] 1 WLR 514, [1971] UKPC 5, [1971] TR 29
Bailii
Commonwealth
Cited by:
CitedPegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise CA 27-Jul-2004
The taxpayer complained that the assessment imposed by the Commissioners was wholly unreasonable, and void. The tribunal had found the assessment wholly unreasonable, but the High Court had allowed the Commissioners’ appeal.
Held: There was no . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.200234

In re Sutherland, dec’d; Winter v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 1963

The concept of a contingent liability was considered.
Held: In Scots law, a contingent liability is a liability which, by reason of something done by the person bound, may or may not arise depending on the happening of a future event.
Lord Guest said: ‘The purpose of section 7(5) . . is to value the property. ‘It does not’ as Lord Evershed said ‘require you to assume that the sale . . has occurred.’ It simply prescribes, as the criterion for value, price in the open market as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, which is a familiar basis for valuation.’
He set out the test for a contingent liability as follows: ‘Contingent liabilities must . . be something different from future liabilities which are binding on the company, but are not payable until a future date. I should define a contingency as an event which may or may not occur and a contingent liability as a liability which depends for its existence upon an event which may or may not happen.’
A contingent obligation must be distinguished from a mere spes obligationis, or the hope or expectancy of an obligation yet to emerge. Lord Reid said: ‘. . if I see a watch in a shop window and think of buying it, I am not under a contingent liability to pay the price: similarly, if an Act says I must pay tax if I trade and make a profit, I am not before I begin trading under a contingent liability to pay tax in the event of my starting trading. In neither case have I committed myself to anything. But if I agree by contract to accept allowances on the footing that I will pay a sum if I later sell something above a certain price I have committed myself and I come under a contingent liability to pay in that event.’
Lord Guest, Lord Reid
[1963] AC 235
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedGrays Timber Products Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 3-Feb-2010
An assessment to income tax had been raised after the employee resold shares in the company issued through the employees’ share scheme at a price which the Revenue said was above the share value. The company appealed against a finding that tax was . .
HelpfulIn re SBA Properties Ltd ChD 1967
A court action had been raised in the name of a company without authority, giving rise to a possible liability in expenses to the defendants. One of the defendants claimed that, in the event that the company’s liquidator ratified the action, that . .
AppliedIn re T and N Ltd and Others (No 3) ChD 16-Jun-2006
The court considered the application of ‘the bankruptcy template of section 382 to the rules governing the winding up of companies’.
Held: The phrase ‘obligation incurred’ in Rule 13.2(1)(b) was inapt to describe a common law duty of care in . .
CitedIn re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.396610

Revenue and Customs v Hill (Tax): UTTC 14 Feb 2018

PROCEDURE – refusal of application by HMRC to strike out appeals against assessments to excise duty and penalty – whether FTT erred in law in refusing application to strike out appeal against duty assessment – appeal allowed – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 10(1)(b) – whether FTT erred in law in awarding costs against HMRC for acting unreasonably in bringing proceedings – appeal allowed in part – use of striking out in relation to penalty appeals
[2018] UKUT 45 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 December 2020; Ref: scu.604788

James Murray King v Annie Marie Walden (HM Inspector of Taxes): ChD 12 Jun 2001

A decision to impose a penalty on a taxpayer, involved a charge of a criminal nature, for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention. It was necessary, therefore, to proceed with such a matter quickly. Even so, in the imposition of such penalties, there was no point upon which the burden of proof did not lay on the Crown, and the taxpayer had had opportunity at each stage to have his say. In this case, the matter had taken some five years. This was only just acceptable, and the Revenue should look at some way of fast tracking appeals in such matters.
Times 12-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 419, [2001] STC 822
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights art 6(2)
Cited by:
CitedKing v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
The claimant had been subject to tax penalty proceedings. They continued for more than 14 years.
Held: The length of the proceedings exceeded the time properly to be allowed, and infringed his right to a fair trial. Though the taxpayer himself . .
13881/02, Times 23-Nov-04, [2004] ECHR 631

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.82788

Carstairs (Inspector of Taxes) v Sykes: ChD 20 Dec 2000

The taxpayer had claimed tax relief for certain periods (approximately six years) when he was living abroad. The Crown appealed a decision of the commissioners discharging their assessment to tax.
Held: There is a distinction in law between the residence abroad and absence for the purposes of tax relief. The taxpayer can be resident, but absent abroad. For the purposes of the provisions of schedule E tax deductions on foreign earnings, the taxpayer should not be free to include periods when he was neither resident, nor ordinarily resident, when aggregating the qualifying period of absence. Whether someone was at any particular moment absent from the UK could only be answered in the context of the question. In this context that, must require the court to give to meaning of a qualifying period absence in the sense of not being physically present in the place of residence.
Hart J
Times 20-Dec-2000
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 193(1) Sch E

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.78919

Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 19 Oct 2016

The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been rejected at first instance and at the court of appeal.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal succeeded. The approach should have been within the law of confidence. The information provided was confidential. The schemes at issue were of the past, and disclosure could not assist their prevention, and ‘a general desire to foster good relations with the media or to publicise HMRC’s views about elaborate tax avoidance schemes cannot possibly justify a senior or any other official of HMRC discussing the affairs of individual tax payers with journalists.’
‘ It is a cardinal error to suppose that the public law remedies and principles associated with judicial review of the exercise of administrative power, developed by the common law from the ancient prerogative writs, occupy the entire field whenever the party whose conduct is under challenge holds a public position. It is important to emphasise that public bodies are not immune from the ordinary application of the common law, including in this case the law of confidentiality. The common law is multi-faceted and remains the bedrock of the English legal system.’
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 54, [2017] 1 All ER 95, [2016] BTC 41, [2016] WLR(D) 540, [2016] STC 2306, [2016] 1 WLR 4164, [2016] STI 2746, UKSC 2015/0082
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 18
England and Wales
Citing:
At CAIngenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs CA 4-Mar-2015
The claimant sought judicial review of the disclosure, off the record by an officer of the defendant to a journalist, of confidential materials as to their investigation of his involvement in a film investment scheme. The claim had been rejected by . .
[2015] EWCA Civ 173, [2015] STI 612, [2015] STC 1357, [2015] 1 WLR 3183, [2015] BTC 12
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
[1982] AC 617, [1981] UKHL 2, [1981] 2 All ER 93, [1981] 2 WLR 722, [1981] UKHL TC – 55 – 133, [1981] 1 WLR 793, [1981] TR 215, 55 TC 24, [1981] STC 344
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston HL 1984
The applicant was assured by the Inland Revenue that it would not raise further inquiries on certain tax affairs if he agreed to forgo interest relief which he had claimed and to pay a certain sum in capital gains tax.
Held: Where the . .
[1985] AC 835, [1984] UKHL 5, [1985] BTC 208, [1984] 3 WLR 945, [1985] 2 All ER 327
CitedMarcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1992
A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case.
[1992] Ch 225, [1992] 1 All ER 72
CitedRe Arrows Ltd No 4 HL 1995
The Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal from the judge who had directed that the transcripts of examinations of a director of an insolvent company under section 236 on the Director of the Serious Fraud Office undertaking that the transcripts would . .
[1995] 2 AC 75
Ar First InstanceIngenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 25-Oct-2013
Application for judicial review of a decision of the Defendants acting by one of their most senior officials to disclose information relating to the claimants in an ‘off the record’ briefing with two journalists.
Held: The request for judicial . .
[2013] EWHC 3258 (Admin), [2014] BTC 3, [2013] STI 3400, [2013] WLR(D) 410, [2014] STC 673, [2014] ACD 65
CitedW v Egdell CA 1990
The plaintiff was detained in a secure mental hospital, under a hospital order coupled with a restriction order, after pleading guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The defendant, a consultant psychiatrist, was engaged . .
[1990] 1 Ch 359
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Times 09-Jul-99, Gazette 28-Jul-99, [1999] UKHL 33, [2000] 2 AC 115, [1999] 3 All ER 400, [1999] 3 WLR 328, [1999] EMLR 689, (1999) 7 BHRC 411, (1999) 2 CHRLD 359
CitedMcKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
[2005] EWHC 3003 (QB), [2006] EMLR 10
CitedThe Public Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 13-Jul-2016
Proposed changes to the Legal Aid regulations were challenged as being invalid, for being discriminatory. If regulations are not authorised under statute, they will be invalid, even if they have been approved by resolutions of both Houses under the . .
[2016] UKSC 39, [2016] AC 153, [2016] HRLR 17, [2016] WLR(D) 384, [2016] 3 WLR 387, UKSC 2015/0255

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.570160

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Goldblatt: 1972

In a winding up case, the Commissioners can if necessary proceed against a receiver for misfeasance.
[1972] Ch 498
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
[2008] UKHL 19, [2008] BPIR 699, [2008] 2 WLR 711, [2008] STI 938, [2008] 1 AC 1174, [2008] STC 644, [2008] BVC 340, [2008] BTC 5216

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.268780