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

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

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

Ransom v Higgs: 1973

Megarry J
[1974] 50 Tax Cas 1, [1973] I WLR 1187
Cited by:
CitedPaul Alexander Clark (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) v The Trustees of The British Telecom Pension Scheme and Others ChD 14-Oct-1998
The question was whether sub-underwriting commissions received by the Trustees are chargeable to tax under Case I of Schedule D and whether they are also liable to the additional rate of tax applicable to trusts. The investment managers appointed to . .
Times 16-Oct-98, [1998] EWHC Ch 296
At First InstanceRansom (Inspector of Taxes) v Higgs, etc HL 13-Nov-1974
A company had devised two elaborate schemes with a view to avoiding income tax. Lord Wilberforce discussed the definition of ‘trade’: ‘`Trade’ cannot be precisely defined, but certain characteristics can be identified which trade normally has. . .
[1974] UKHL 5, [1974] 1 WLR 1594, [1974] STC 539, [1974] TR 281, [1974] 3 All ER 949

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.183489

Arnold (Inspector of Taxes) v G Con Ltd: ChD 4 Mar 2005

The revenue appealed against an order by the general commissioners to grant to the taxpayer, a construction industry subcontractor, a fresh exemption certficate where he had been consistently late in submitting tax and NI payments of several thousand pounds.
Held: The determination was incorrect as a matter of law. The breaches could not be described as minor or technical so as to alow the commissioners to make the order they had.
Mann J
Times 14-Mar-2005
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 565(4)
Citing:

  • Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
    The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
    Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
    [1956] AC 14, [1955] 3 All ER 48, [1955] 36 Tax Cas 207, [1955] UKHL 3, [1955] UKHL TC – 36 – 207, 36 TC 207

Cited by:

  • Appeal from – Arnold (Inspector of Taxes) v G Con Ltd CA 12-May-2006
    The tax payer company had failed to send in pay as you earn and NI returns for three years. The commissioners had found this to be only a minor failure and that the company was entitled to an exemption certificate under the construction industry . .
    Times 09-Jun-06, [2006] EWCA Civ 829

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 December 2020; Ref: scu.224049

Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 22 Jul 2002

The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax avoidance scheme. However, here the company already owned and operated the pipeline, and continued to do so after the arrangement. It owed the money before, and still owed it afterwards. The issue was whether the company had incurred the expenditure in provision of the pipeline, and practitioners should be careful not to lose themselves in the technical minutiae of the documentation. This was merely financial engineering, and did not qualify: ‘If corporation tax rates changed, the head lease rent payable to BMBF would change but the sublease rent payable by BGE (UK) would remain the same. If I have understood correctly how it would work, if the head lease rent went up BGE (UK) would still pay the full amount of the sublease rent to BMBF, and the balance of the (now) increased head lease rent would be paid by BGE to BMBF; if the head lease rent went down BGE (UK) would pay part of the sublease rent to BMBF (that part being equal to the (now) reduced head lease rent) and would pay the balance of the sublease rent to BGE.’
Park J
Times 26-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC Ch 1525, [2003] STC 66
Capital Allowances Act 1990 24(1)
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
    The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
    Held: If the true nature . .
    [1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174
  • Cited – McNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd CA 26-Oct-1998
    Cross loans were made between an investment company and pension schemes. The overall effect was to create payments which could be set off against Corporation Tax. They were not a pre-ordained series of transactions where the underlying loans were . .
    Times 26-Oct-98, Gazette 18-Nov-98, [2001] 2 WLR 377, [1998] EWCA Civ 1608

Cited by:

  • Awaiting Appeal – BMBF (No 24) Limited v the Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 6-Nov-2003
    The taxpayer, a non-resident, operated a sale and lease back scheme of machinery to be used in its business within the UK. There had been a chain of leases.
    Held: The court had first to identify the ‘relevant lease’. It was the head lease . .
    [2003] EWCA Civ 1560, Times 27-Nov-03
  • Appeal from – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Dec-2002
    The taxpayer entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of a gas pipeline, and sought to set off the costs as a capital allowance.
    Held: The company’s appeal succeeded: ‘There is nothing in the statute to suggest that ‘up-front . .
    [2002] STI 1809, [2002] EWCA Civ 1853, [2003] BTC 81, [2003] STC 66
  • At first instance – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
    The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
    [2004] UKHL 51, [2004] 76 TC 446, [2005] 1 All ER 97, [2005] 1 AC 684, [2005] STC 1, [2004] 3 WLR 1383, [2004] BTC 414, 76 TC 446, [2004] STI 2435, 7 ITL Rep 383, [2004] UKHL TC – 76 – 446

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 December 2020; Ref: scu.174737

The Commissioners of Customs And Excise v Bassimeh: CA 20 Nov 1996

The respondent had operated a restaurant through a limited company. The commissioners issued notices of assessments and penalties against the company, now in liquidation, and the defendant, on the basis that the company had consistently under-reported its takings. The commissioners appealed a decision setting aside the notices. The argument was as to whether notices had to be issued for the separate quarters. Because the revenue could calculate the penalty as equivalent to the amount under declared, no separate calculation need be made, even though, in this case, no penalty was recoverable for part of the period.
[1996] EWCA Civ 999
Finance Act 1985 13(4)
England and Wales

Updated: 08 December 2020; Ref: scu.140866

Piggott (Inspector of Taxes) v Staines Investment Ltd: ChD 1 Mar 1995

An arrangement which had the effect of mitigating tax by a pre-ordained series of steps was nevertheless upheld as valid. Transactions were not caught by anti-avoidance provisions, where they were not in fact one composite whole.
Gazette 01-Mar-1995, Times 07-Feb-1995
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239

Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.84733

McEwan v Martin (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 20 Jan 2005

The tax inspector had sought to make an assessment outside the six year period, saying that the accounts had been prepared negligently. The taxpayer had claimed roll-over relief.
Held: The fact that the inspector had relied on professionally drawn accounts without investigating them further at the time was not a reason to disallow a reopening of the accounts. The inspector had been entitled to rely upon the accounts at the time. They did not cease to have been prepared negligently only because the tax inspector had accepted them.
Park J
Times 01-Jul-2005
Taxes Management Act 1970 36
England and Wales

Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.228427

S v S (Inland Revenue: Tax Evasion): FD 1997

Disclosure of Ancillary Relief Papers to HMRC

Wilson J considered disclosure of materials filed in the course of matrimonial proceedings to the Inland Revenue: ‘Under both r 10.15(6) and r 10.20(3) I have a discretion. In the light of the authorities I propose to exercise it by reference to the following considerations.
It is greatly in the public interest that all tax due should be paid and that in serious cases, pour encourager les autres, evaders of tax should be convicted and sentenced. It feels unseemly that a judge to whose notice tax evasion is brought should turn a blind eye to it by not causing it to be reported to the Revenue. In one sense that would almost cheapen the law.
On the other hand it is greatly in the public interest that in proceedings for ancillary relief the parties should make full and frank disclosure of their resources and thus often of aspects of their financial history. Were it to be understood that candour would be likely to lead – in all but the very rare case – to exposure of under-declarations to the Revenue, the pressure wrongfully to dissemble within the proceedings might be irresistible to a far bigger congregation of litigants than is typified by the husband in these proceedings, who of course resolved not to be candid in any event. False presentations by respondents in ancillary proceedings have two repercussions, both seriously contrary to the public interest:
(a)either the judge remains deceived, in which the case the award is likely to be inaptly low, or he perceives the deception, whereupon he may draw necessarily broad inferences of hidden wealth which, depending on their scale, could make the award inaptly high or indeed leave it still inaptly low; and
(b)applicants are seldom minded to compromise their claims on the basis of presentations which they believe to be materially false and their stance, if justified by the court’s findings, will often be upheld in relation to costs. Yet the family justice system depends upon the compromise of all but a few applications for ancillary relief.
Between these two opposing public interests must the individual circumstances be weighed.’
Wilson J
[1997] 2 FLR 774
Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012 29.12
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Churchhouse, 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 . .
    [2003] EWHC 681 (Admin)
  • Cited – V v W FC 2-Dec-2020
    FDR Appointment to Remain Confidential
    XYZ had been appointed to value a family company within financial relief proceedings, but on seeking payment of their fees, and facing a counterclaim alleging negligence, they sought disclosure of the transcript of the Financial Dispute Resolution . .
    [2020] EWFC 84

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.194952

Khan and another v First East Brixton General Commissioners and Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1986

Harman J
[1986] STC 331
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Stockler v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 22-Sep-2009
    The taxpayer appealed against a decision confirming the Commissioners’ power to impose a penalty on him. It was said that his solicitors’ firm had negligently understated its profits. A settlement was proposed allowing a withdrawal of the return, . .
    [2009] EWHC 2306 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.375139

Trautwein v Federal Commissioner of Taxation: 9 Sep 1936

(High Court of Australia) Latham CJ considered how the Inland Revenue might make an assessment of a taxpayer’s income and said: ‘In the absence of some record in the mind or in the books of the taxpayer, it would often be quite impossible to make a correct assessment. The assessment would necessarily be a guess to some extent and almost certainly inaccurate in fact. There is every reason to assume that the legislature did not intend to confer upon a potential taxpayer the valuable privilege of disqualifying himself in that capacity by the simple and relatively unskilled method of losing either his memory or his books.
The application of section 39 is not, in my opinion, excluded as soon as it is shown that an element in the assessment is a guess and that it is therefore very probably wrong. It is prima facie right – and remains right until the appellant shows that it is wrong. If it were necessary to decide the point I would, as at present advised, be prepared to hold that the taxpayer must ‘at least as a general rule’ go further and show not only negatively that the assessment is wrong, but also positively what correction should be made in order to make it right or more nearly right. I say ‘as a general rule’ because, conceivably, there might be a case where it appeared that the assessment had been made upon no intelligible basis even as an approximation, and the court would then set aside the assessment and remit it to the commissioner for further consideration.’
Latham CJ, Starke, Dixon and Evatt JJ.
[1936] 56 CLR 63, [1936] HCA 77
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:

  • Cited – Bi-Flex Caribbean Ltd v Board of Inland Revenue PC 1990
    The general burden falls upon a tax payer to provide the information to allow a tax assessment to be made: ‘The element of guess-work and the almost unavoidable inaccuracy in a properly made best of judgment assessment, as the cases have . .
    (1990) 63 TC 515
  • Cited – Momin and others v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 15-Jun-2007
    The appellants challenged an assessment to income tax, saying that they had not been supported by a bona fide discovery of any loss of tax, and was otherwise unsupported by evidence.
    Held: ‘The appellants have over a period of many years . .
    [2007] EWHC 1400 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.267648

Regina (Cooke) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: QBD 30 Jan 2007

The claimant solicitor sought a judicial review of a requirement made by the revenue that he must produce the papers of his client taxpayer under the section.
Held: The effect of the section was to require a notice to be given by a commissioner and not by an inspector, and altered the applicable provisions according to who served the notice. The section left unsaid the extent to which the commissioners could delegate their functions, and any decision remained subject to the possibility of a judicial review. A public authority has a duty to provide full and fair disclosure and explanations.
Munby J
Times 12-Feb-2007
Taxes Management Act 1970 20
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Applied – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
    The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
    Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
    Times 20-May-02, Gazette 20-Jun-02, [2002] UKHL 21, [2002] 2 WLR 1299, [2003] 1 AC 563, 74 TC 511, [2002] STC 786, [2002] BTC 223, [2002] 3 All ER 1, [2002] HRLR 42, [2002] NPC 70, [2002] STI 806, 4 ITL Rep 809

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.248919

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex Parte Davis Frankel and Mead (A Firm): QBD 11 Jul 2000

The power of the Board of the Inland Revenue to issue notices requiring information was both draconian and intrusive. Nevertheless it was proper to issue a notice to a respectable firm of solicitors who had acted over the years for the tax payer under investigation, might well put a substantial burden upon them, but could nevertheless be delegated to a tax inspector acting as special compliance officer. The power to delegate was not limited by the later Act.
References: Times 11-Jul-2000
Statutes: Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1980 4(A), Finance Act 1976, Taxes Management Act 1970 20
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.85323

Peter Buchanan Limited and Macharg v McVey: 1954

(Supreme Court of Ireland) The plaintiff was a company registered in Scotland put into compulsory liquidation by the revenue under a substantial claim for excess profits tax and income tax. The liquidator was really a nominee of the revenue. The defendant director had realised all the company’s assets and having paid all the debts save the revenue, had the balance transferred to himself to his credit with an Irish bank. He moved to Ireland. The action appeared to seek to recover the balance from the defendant at the instance of the company directed by the liquidator.
Held: The director’s actions were dishonestly intended to defeat the claim of the revenue in Scotland as a creditor. However though the action was in form an action by the company to recover these assets, it was found ‘For the purpose of this case it is sufficient to say that when it appears to the court that the whole object of the suit is to collect tax for a foreign revenue, and that this will be the sole result of a decision in favour of the plaintiff, then a court is entitled to reject the claim by refusing jurisdiction’ and as an attempt to enforce indirectly a claim to tax by the revenue authorities of another State, the action was dismissed.
References: [1955] AC 516, [1954] IR 89
Judges: Kingsmill Moore J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Government of India v Taylor HL 1955
    The Government of India sought to prove in the voluntary liquidation of a company registered in the United Kingdom but trading in India for a sum due in respect of Indian income tax, including capital gains tax, which arose on the sale of the . .
    ([1955] AC 491, [1955] 1 All ER 292, (1955) 27 ITR 356)
  • Approved – In re State of Norway’s application (Nos 1 and 2) HL 1989
    The House considered an application by a foreign state seeking assistance in obtaining evidence here to be used in enforcing its own revenue laws at home.
    Held: Rule 3 of the Convention encapsulated a ‘fundamental rule of English Law’, but did . .
    ([1990] 1 AC 723)
  • Followed – QRS 1 APS and others v Frandsen CA 21-May-1999
    The appellants were all Danish companies put into liquidation for asset stripping in contravention of Danish law. The respondent was resident in the UK and had owned them. The Danish tax authorities issued tax demands and the liquidators now sought . .
    (Times 27-May-99, Gazette 16-Jun-99, , [1999] 3 All ER 298, [1999] EWCA Civ 1463, [1999] 1 WLR 2169, [2000] ILPr 8)
  • Cited – Williams and Humbert Ltd v W and H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd HL 1986
    There had been an expropriation by Spanish decrees of shares in a Spanish company whose English subsidiary had rights in trade marks which it had sold to a Jersey company. The Spanish and English companies sought certain relief in relation to the . .
    ([1986] AC 368, [1986] 1 All ER 129, [1986] 2 WLR 24)
  • Cited – Holland v Lampen-Wolfe HL 20-Jul-2000
    The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state . .
    (Gazette 17-Aug-00, , Times 27-Jul-00, Gazette 03-Aug-00, , [2000] 1 WLR 1573, [2000] UKHL 40, [2000] 3 All ER 833)
  • Cited – Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2006
    hill_spreadCA2006
    The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set . .
    (, Times 10-Jul-06, [2006] EWCA Civ 542, [2007] 1 BCLC 450, [2007] 1 WLR 2404)
  • Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
    mbasogo_logoCA2006
    The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
    Held: The claims were . .
    (, [2006] EWCA Civ 1370, Times 27-Oct-06, [2007] 2 WLR 1062)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.225455

Customs and Excise Commissioners v A and D Goddard (A Firm): ChD 17 May 2001

The taxpayer had re-claimed input VAT on mobile phones, but no output tax was due because they were to be sold outside the UK. The commissioners alleged fraud and refused the refund. On appeal the commissioners at first withdrew the allegation of fraud, and sought to add other grounds. They were allowed a time within which to file new pleadings. In the absence of such filing, the appeal was allowed, despite a request to re-instate the allegations of fraud. The Commissioners in turn appealed. They filed. Arguments they sought to enter had not been raised earlier. The Commissioners had still disclosed no arguable or sustainable case, and it would be wrong for an appeal court to substitute its own discretion for that of the tribunal, merely in order to preserve a substantial sum for the public revenue..
References: Gazette 17-May-2001
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.79746

MacDonald (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 section, and so were deductible from profits. The provision sought to restrain charging against current income payments made for the benefit of employees but which benefit was then delayed in payment. The words ‘with a view to’ were to be construed to mean to the principal and dominant intention. The dominant purpose test was not satisfied because some or all of the benefits might be paid otherwise than as emoluments.
References: Times 25-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 872 (Ch), [2003] STC 749
Judges: Neuberger J
Statutes: Finance Act 1989 43(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
    The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
    Held: If the true nature . .
    ([1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, , [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174)
  • Cited – In re Cutts (a bankrupt); Ex parte Bognor Mutual Building Society CA 1956
    Decisions are often made not for a single reason but for a number.
    The phrase ‘with a view of’ a fraudulent preference was given to one creditor over others, it required it to be established what the person’s dominant intention was.
    Lord . .
    ([1956] 2 All ER 537, [1956] 1 WLR 728)
  • Appeal from – Dextra 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 . .
    (, [2002] UKSC SPC00331, [2002] STC (SCD) 413)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – MacDonald (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 . .
    (Times 03-Feb-04, , [2004] EWCA Civ 22, Gazette 04-Mar-04, [2004] STC 339)
  • At First instance – 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. . .
    (, [2005] UKHL 47, Times 11-Jul-05, , [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)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.181844

Sutherland 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.
References: Ind Summary 31-May-1993, Times 17-May-1993
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 56
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89626

Regina v R (Inland Revenue: Tax Evasion): FD 1 Jul 1998

The court declined to order the return by the Inland Revenue of documents disclosed to it regarding a husband’s failure to disclose income, where the disclosure was recent and tax payable could affected the order. The wife’s wrongful behaviour in maing the disclosure was to be reflected in court order.
References: Gazette 01-Jul-1998, [1998] 1 FLR 922
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Churchhouse, 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 . .
    (, [2003] EWHC 681 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.88590

Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Ex Parte Tamosius and Partners: QBD 10 Nov 1999

Officers executing a search warrant under the Taxes Management section could properly have accompany them, a legally qualified person who could make immediate assessments of any claim for protection for materials at the property searched by way of legal professional privilege. Such a procedure was sensible. An assertion of a claim of legal privilege was not to be accepted simply as asserted.
References: Times 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 453
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 20C
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.85197

Moodie v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another and similar: HL 7 Apr 1993

A scheme was devised to sell annuities to charities. They then used the capital sum paid to purchase promissory notes from the charity, which were in turn used to secure annuity payments.
Held: The scheme was entirely self cancelling and void. Payments made in pursuance of the scheme fell outside the ambit of the section.
There was a conversation between the plaintiff, who had been gazumped, and the defendant, who was playing the plaintiff off against another interested party in a private treaty sale. The defendant agreed orally not to market the property for a short period, and he confirmed this by letter. The defendant appealed against a finding that he had broken his promise, saying that the 1989 Act had not been complied with.
Held: A negative undertaking in the form of a lock out agreement, with a short stipulated period was enforceable, even though it was oral only. It was not itself a contract for the sale of any interest in land, and was not governed by the 1989 Act, and had not been required to be in writing.
References: Gazette 16-Jun-1993, Ind Summary 15-Mar-1993, Gazette 07-Apr-1993
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 348, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 52(1)
This case cites:

  • Applied – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
    The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
    Held: If the true nature . .
    ([1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, , [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.83813

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Oce Van Der Bgrinton Nv: ChD 21 Nov 2000

The question of how to balance double taxation provisions when considering deduction of tax at source under such an agreement with a member from dividends paid by a UK company to its Dutch parent is one to be settled by the European court. This was a question of whether this constituted a ‘withholding tax’ forbidden by the Directive.
References: Times 21-Nov-2000
Statutes: UK/Netherlands Double Taxation Agreement

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82354

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Amerada Hess Ltd: ChD 20 Mar 2001

An oil exploration company was able to set off against the charge to Petroleum Revenue Tax on its profits from the exploitation of an oilfield, the cost of abortive explorations outside the field but less than five kilometers away. The transitional provisions following the abandonment of the tax on new oilfields did not affect this issue.
References: Times 20-Mar-2001
Statutes: Oil Taxation Act 1975

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82339

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Laird Group Plc: ChD 13 Mar 2001

It was difficult to reconcile different decisions of the higher courts. Nevertheless, the declaration and payment of a dividend which did not involve any transaction in securities, or alteration of rights attaching to securities, was not itself a dealing in securities. The arrangement involved the declaration of abnormally large dividends in purchasing another company so as to create franked income which it could then set off against its own liability to tax at tax rates applicable to its group. If a payment operated to extinguish a security, it might become such a transaction, but in this case it had not.
References: Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 706

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82347

Griffin v Citibank Investments Ltd: ChD 14 Nov 2000

Where there existed properly constituted documents recording a contract, the court could not go behind them to discover the real transaction. The rules in Ramsay is not a special set of principles restricted to issues in determining the legal effect for taxation of a series of transactions, but rather part of general rules. In this case no steps had been introduced into the transaction whose only purpose was to reduce tax liability, and they could not be seen as one composite whole.
References: Times 14-Nov-2000, Gazette 23-Nov-2000
This case cites:

  • Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
    The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
    Held: If the true nature . .
    ([1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, , [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.81036

Gardner-Shaw UK Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 3 Aug 2018

PROCEDURE – application to vary directions while original directions under appeal in face of newly presented evidence – whether special circumstances – nature of relevant evidence in cases of ‘supervisory’ jurisdiction – application allowed
References: [2018] UKFTT 432 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621427

Fitzwilliam (Countess) and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 9 Jul 1993

An Inheritance Tax avoidance scheme was valid. When testing whether a series of pre-ordained steps could be viewed as one artificial whole, it was not open to the Commissioners to pick and to choose which steps were to be counted. The exercise became artificial when some were excluded at the option of the commissioners. Pre-planning of steps alone not sufficient to attract Ramsay interpretation
References: Times 09-Jul-1993, Gazette 08-Dec-1993, Ind Summary 19-Jul-1993
Statutes: Finance Act 1975 Schedule 5

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.80587

Footlong Subs Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jul 2018

Procedure : Other – – whether witness statement complied with rule 8(1) unless order – no – whether, if wrong on that, disclosure should be ordered – no – whether appeal should be struck out as lacking reasonable prospect of success – yes if not already struck out.
References: [2018] UKFTT 367 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619371

Rezaee v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Jun 2018

Procedure – power to review decision of Tribunal’s own motion where no application for permission to appeal made – review finding error of law in original decision – decision remade and original decision reversed – application for permission to appeal to HMRC out of time granted.
References: [2018] UKFTT 302 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619358

Simply Construct (UK) Llp v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2018

Procedure : Expenses – whether the appellant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) Tax Chamber Rules 2009, Rule 10(1)(b) – Yes – expenses awarded
References: [2018] UKFTT 305 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619361

Anderson v The Commissioners for Hm Revenue and Customs: UTTC 17 May 2018

INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – s 29 TMA – meaning of ‘discover’ – subjective and objective tests – whether Revenue officer believed that there had been an insufficiency of tax – whether officer merely had grounds for suspicion -whether it was open to officer to believe that there had been an insufficiency of tax – whether losses claimed to have arisen in a soccer academy trade were available for sideways loss relief – ss 64 and 72 ITA – whether taxpayer carried on a trade – whether on a commercial basis and with a view to or realistic expectation of profit – ss 66 and 74 ITA – whether tax-generated losses -s 74B ITA
References: [2018] UKUT 159 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.616366

Distinctive Care Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 15 May 2018

Procedure – costs – First-tier Tribunal Procedure Rule 10 – whether Respondents acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings – whether Appellant’s schedule of costs claimed complied with Rule 10(3)(b) – whether any breach of that rule should have been waived – guidance on content of schedule of costs
References: [2018] UKUT 155 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.616368

The Trustees of Alan Deville Deceased v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Apr 2018

Procedure : Scope of Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – – Scope of Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider public law issues – whether Hok, Birkett and other cases decided per incuriam – application to strike out
References: [2018] UKFTT 184 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.609290

Murat, Regina (on the Application Of) v Office of the Special Commissioners: Admn 26 May 2005

The taxpayer appealed a penalty imposed on him. In the appeal he had made the Commissioner the defendant.
Held: The proceedings were misconceived and an abuse of the process of the court.
References: [2005] EWHC 1208 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.226742

X 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 justification – Effective collection and recovery of tax – Directive 76/308
References: [2011] EUECJ C-498/10
Links: Bailii
Judges: Kokott AG
Jurisdiction: European
This case is cited by:

  • Opinion – X v Staatssecretaris Van Financien ECJ 18-Oct-2012 (C-498/10, , [2012] EUECJ C-498/10)
    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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.605771

City Shoes (Wholesale) Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: CA 2 Mar 2018

The court was asked whether the Commissioners had acted with such conspicuous unfairness as to amount to an abuse of power when they curtailed the benefits available under the so-called Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility to the nine claimants in these judicial review proceedings, in relation to certain employee benefit trust arrangements which they had operated and which were under investigation by HMRC.
References: [2018] EWCA Civ 315
Links: Bailii
Judges: Longmore, Henderson, Holroyde LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.605694

Z Denmark v Skatteministeriet: ECJ 1 Mar 2018

Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Council Directive 2003/49 / EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (known as the Interest and Royalties Directive) – Concept of beneficial owner – Proprietary trading – Impact of comments of the OECD model convention on the interpretation of a European Union directive – Misuse of tax adjustment possibilities – Criteria relating to the existence of an abuse to avoid tax at source – Abuse to exploit the absence of information exchange systems between States – Direct application of a non-transposed directive provision – Interpretation in accordance with EU law of principlesnational prevention of abuse
References: [2018] EUECJ C-299/16 – O, ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 148
Links: Bailii
Judges: Kokott AG
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.606036

Faichney and Another v Aquila Advisory Ltd and Others: ChD 20 Mar 2018

The court considered claims beneficial ownership of an interest in funds otherwise made subject to an order under the 2002 Act.
References: [2018] EWHC 565 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Mann J
Statutes: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.606481

Smith v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 3 Jan 2018

FTTTX PROCEDURE – application for witness summons and orders and for disclosure – refused – Tribunal of its own motion minded to strike out appeal on grounds of no reasonable prospect of success, subject to representations – representations made and appeal struck out.
References: [2018] UKFTT 6 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.602939

Knibbs and Others v Revenue and Customs: ChD 7 Feb 2018

Two sets of proceedings, each concerning several claimants, in which the Defendants now sought to strike out the claimants’ claims for declarations requiring HMRC to give immediate effect to various tax claims which the claimants have made and for declarations, that where repayments and discharges of tax have already been made, they cannot be recovered or otherwise reversed by HMRC.
References: [2018] EWHC 136 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Warren J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.604196

ISPAS (General Principles of Eu Law – Right To Good Administration and Rights of The Defencea): ECJ 9 Nov 2017

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – General principles of EU law – Right to good administration and rights of the defence – National tax rules providing for the right to be heard and the right to be informed during an administrative tax procedure – Decision to levy value added tax issued by the national tax authorities without giving the taxpayer access to the information and the documents upon which that decision was based
References: C-298/16, [2017] EUECJ C-298/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:843
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 15 November 2020; Ref: scu.599682

Wallace v Revenue and Customs: ChD 6 Dec 2017

The court was asked whether the relevant statutory regime permitted the claimant to pursue a claim at common law for restitution of overpaid income tax or, whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
Held: They are two sides of the same coin. The court has no jurisdiction to entertain this claim and, therefore, the claimant has no reasonable grounds for bringing it.
References: [2017] EWHC 3115 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Marsh CM
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 15 November 2020; Ref: scu.601840

Superior Import / Export Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 11 Dec 2017

Challenge by the Claimants to the lawfulness of the decision by a Justice of the Peace sitting Birmingham Magistrates’ Court to grant 3 search warrants under s. 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in relation to premises owned or occupied by them.
References: [2017] EWHC 3172 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Gross LJ, Carr J
Statutes: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 November 2020; Ref: scu.601506

Manhattan Systems Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 5 Dec 2017

PROCEDURE – application for expedited hearing of de-registration decision -not made out on facts – application for consolidation of MTIC appeals with de-registration appeal – nature of Tribunal’s jurisdiction – full appellate – appeals consolidated -directions issued
References: [2017] UKFTT 862 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 November 2020; Ref: scu.600996

Newcastle United Football Club Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 4 Oct 2017

The claimants challenged the legality of decisions taken by HMRC to apply for search and seizure warrants under the 1984 Act in connection with a criminal investigation of suspected evasion of VAT, income tax and National Insurance Contributions by NUFC in relation to payments made to and via football agents, and the decision to issue the warrants.
Held: The challenges failed.
References: [2017] EWHC 2402 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Beatson LJ, Whipple J
Statutes: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13 November 2020; Ref: scu.597452

Revenue and Customs v SDI (Brook Eu) Ltd and Another: UTTC 11 Aug 2017

PROCEDURE – application to strike out appellants’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction – whether HMRC had made an appealable decision – FTT refusal to strike out – whether FTT erred in law – whether decision of FTT should be set aside
References: [2017] UKUT 327 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13 November 2020; Ref: scu.595600

Chadwick (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Oduneye-Braniffe) v The National Crime Agency: FTTTx 30 Aug 2017

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Proceeds of Crime Act – INCOME TAX – Exercise of revenue functions by NCA – whether qualifying condition met – validity of assessments on pre-bankruptcy income addressed to trustee – whether deliberate conduct properly pleaded – validity of assessments assessing one figure on two bases – whether returns required and made – whether discovery of loss of tax – whether bankrupt was carrying on trade of money laundering from which profits arose – appeals allowed.
References: [2017] UKFTT 656 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 12 November 2020; Ref: scu.594543

Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: Admn 29 Jun 2017

References: [2017] EWHC 1476 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Green J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 10 November 2020; Ref: scu.588878