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

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

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

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: 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

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

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

Tager v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 7 Dec 2015

PROCEDURE- penalty imposed in accordance with FA 2008, Sch 36, para 50 – parties agreed that decision records incorrect amount but not agreed on correction to be made – whether decision should be amended under slip rule (r 42) or should be set aside and remade (r 43) – neither rule engaged but different course suggested
References: [2015] UKUT 663 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.558966

Raftopoulou v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 13 Nov 2015

PROCEDURE – costs – whether the Tribunal has power to order a payment in respect of pro bono costs – s 194, Legal Services Act 2007; s 29, Tribunals, courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – held: no such power in the Tribunal – application refused
References: [2015] UKUT 630 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.558953

Telng Ltd v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 2 Aug 2016

References: [2016] UKUT 363 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: UTTC PENALTY – non-compliance with information notice – Schedule 36, Finance Act 2008 – notice requiring production of documents by post or email – whether notice invalid for not specifying production for inspection at an agreed or specified place – no – appeal dismissed
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 11-Nov-16
Ref: 570419

Collector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd; 4 Dec 2003

References: [2003] HKCFA 52, [2004] 1 HKLRD 77, (2003) 6 HKCFAR 517, ACV 4/2003
Links: Hklii
Coram: Ribeiro PJ, Lord Millett NPJ
Ratio: (Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal) The court was asked as to the accounting treatment of interests incurred in the development for the purpose of generating the profits, and therefore whether the relevant Ordinance prohibited the capitalisation of interest for the purpose of computing the taxpayer’s assessable profits and allowable deductions.
Held: The resolution of that question depended on the proper accountancy treatment of capitalised interest.
Ribeiro PJ said: ‘The . . preferable, view is that the Ramsay principle does not espouse any specialised principle of statutory construction applicable to tax legislation, whatever its language, but continues to assert the need to apply orthodox methods of purposive interpretation to the facts viewed realistically. In common with Lord Hoffman in MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd [2003] 1 AC 311 . . I am of the view that Lord Brightman’s formulation in not a principle of construction, but, as stated above, a decision that the Court is entitled, for fiscal purposes, to disregard intermediate steps having no commercial purpose as a consequence of an orthodox exercise of purposive statutory construction.’ and ‘Accordingly, the driving principle in the Ramsay line of cases continues to involve a general rule of statutory construction and an unblinkered approach to the analysis of the facts. The ultimate question is whether the relevant statutory provisions, construed purposively, were intended to apply to the transaction, viewed realistically.’
Lord Millett NPJ said: ‘Both profits and losses therefore must be ascertained in accordance with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting as modified to conform with the Ordinance. Where the taxpayer’s financial statements are correctly drawn in accordance with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting and in conformity with the Ordinance, no further modifications are required or permitted. Where the taxpayer may properly draw its financial statements on either of two alternative bases, the Commissioner is both entitled and bound to ascertain the assessable profits on whichever basis the taxpayer has chosen to adopt. He is bound to do so because he has no power to alter the basis on which the taxpayer has drawn its financial statements unless it is inconsistent with a provision of the Ordinance. But he is also entitled to do so, with the result that the taxpayer is effectively bound by its own choice, not because of any estoppel, but because it is the Commissioner’s function to make the assessment and for the taxpayer to show that it is wrong.’ and . .
‘the subject is to be taxed by the legislature and not by the courts’.
This case cites:

  • Restated – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL ([1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, Bailii, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174)
    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 . .
  • Cited – MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL (Gazette 15-Feb-01, Times 14-Feb-01, House of Lords, Bailii, [2001] UKHL 6, [2001] 1 All ER 865, (2001) 73 TC 1, [2001] 2 WLR 377, [2003] 1 AC 311)
    The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL (Bailii, House of Lords, [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, Bailii, [2004] UKHL TC_76_446)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Campbell v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCIT (Bailii, [2004] UK SPC00421, [2004] STC (SCD) 396)
    SCIT INCOME TAX – Anti-Avoidance – Relevant discounted security – Loss on gift to wife – Subscription for security and gift part of scheme to produce loss – Avoidance not the Appellant’s sole purpose in . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 03-Aug-16
Ref: 220504

Singh v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 15 May 2010

References: [2010] UKUT 174 (TCC), [2010] BPIR 933, [2010] BTC 1548, [2010] STI 1723, [2010] STC 2020
Links: Bailii
Coram: Warren J P
Ratio: UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in his bankrupty. He now renewed his application to bring judicial review.
Held: He had no standing to bring judiial review proceedings. Warren J approved the aproach suggested in Hurren, that agreement should be sought between the bankrupt and the inspector, with the trustee ensuring that any agreement was proper.
This case cites:

  • Cited – Smith (a bankrupt) -v- Braintree District Council HL ([1989] 3 All ER 897, [1989] 3 WLR 1317, [1990] 2 AC 215)
    The House considered the effects of bankruptcy on the imposition of a committal to imprisonment in default of paying rates.
    The purpose of section 285 is to preserve the estate of the bankrupt for the benefit of his unsecured creditors.
  • Cited – Heath -v- Tang, Stevens -v- Peacock CA (Independent 14-Oct-93, Times 11-Aug-93, [1993] 4 ALL ER 694, [1993] 1 WLR 1421)
    The bankrupt applicants each applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the judgment for a liquidated sum on which the bankruptcy petition had been based. In the first case, the trustee in bankruptcy indicated his unwillingness to . .
  • Cited – Wordsworth -v- Dixon CA ([1997] BPIR 337)
    The bankrupt had been a defendant in the action brought by the plaintiff. The court considered his standing to appeal.
    Held: The right to appeal vested in the trustee. Sir Thomas Bingham MR referred to the case of Heath v Tang and said: ‘that . .
  • Cited – Re a Debtor, ex parte the Debtor -v- Dodwell ChD ([1949] Ch 236)
    Harman J held that it was for the bankrupt’s trustee alone to settle with the Crown in a case where the bankrupt had been discharged and there was no tax assessment. . .
  • Cited – Re Hurren (a bankrupt) ChD ([1983] 1 WLR 183)
    There might have been a surplus after paying the debts due to the Inland Revenue (the major creditor).
    Held: The way forward was for the trustee to agree the tax liability with the Revenue but only with the consent of the bankrupt. Walton J . .
  • Cited – Sivasubramaniam -v- Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further & Higher Education and Another CA (Gazette 23-Jan-03, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 1738, [2003] 1 WLR 475, [2003] CP Rep 27, [2003] 2 All ER 160)
    Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 07-Jun-16
Ref: 428155

Derry, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 28 Jul 2015

References: [2015] UKUT 416 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Application for judicial review – self-assessment in annual return – claim to relief under Chapter 6 of Part 4 of Income Tax Act 2007 (dealing with share loss relief) – whether such a claim governed by section 42(11A) of, and Schedule 1B, to Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether any enquiry into claim should be under section 9A or under Schedule 1A of Taxes Management Act 2007- whether claim given effect within paragraph 4 of Schedule 1A to Taxes Management Act 1970 – whether judicial review appropriate procedure
Statutes: Income Tax Act 2007, Taxes Management Act 2007
Last Update: 16-Oct-15 Ref: 553186

HM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp; UTTC 22 Mar 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 1041 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying with a direction for preparation of hearing bundles – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules – rule 2 (overriding objective) – rule 5 (case management powers) – rule 10 (orders for costs)
This case cites:

  • See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp -v- Revenue & Customs SCIT (Bailii, [2009] UKSPC SPC00736, [2009] STI 627, [2009] STC (SCD) 293)
    SCIT Closure notice – application for direction to close enquiry into tax return – limited liability partnership – s 28B Taxes Management Act 1970 – direction for closure within three months . .
  • See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No. 35 Llp -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2010] UKFTT 448 (TC))
    FTTTx INCOME TAX – Applications by the parties for further directions – whether departure by HMRC unilaterally from the timetable for preparation for the appeal set down in agreed directions, causing additional . .
  • See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2011] UKFTT 401 (TC))
    FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
  • See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2012] UKFTT 270 (TC))
    FTTTx Income tax – limited liability partnership acquired licence to film rights and sub-licensed rights to distributor – complex financing arrangements involving loans to members of the partnership and . .

This case is cited by:

The Trustees of The BT Pension Scheme v HMRC FTC/91 and 92/2011; UTTC 28 Feb 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 105 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC TAX CREDIT – Foreign income dividends – Claim by Trustees of exempt approved pension scheme – FIDS received from UK resident companies – ICTA 1988 s.231 TAX CREDIT – Cross-border dividends – Claims for tax credits based on ECJ decision in Manninen (Case C-319/0)2 – ICTA 1988 s.231 LIMITATIONS – Tax credit claims – Whether out of time – TMA s.43(1)

HMRC v Charlton Corfield and Corfield; UTTC 20 Dec 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 770 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Capital Gains Tax – whether discovery assessments valid – s 29, Taxes Management Act 1970 – meaning of ‘discovery’ – inference of information under s 29(6)(d)(i) – inclusion of DOTAS scheme reference number in return – whether an officer could not have been reasonably expected to be aware of an insufficiency of tax (s 29(5)) – nature of the hypothetical officer
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 29

Moore v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 16 Jun 2011

References: [2011] BTC 1793, [2011] STC 1784, [2011] UKUT 239 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Bishopp J
UTTC INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – TMA s 29 – taxpayer setting capital losses against income – workings sent with return but net figures entered on return – First-tier Tribunal’s finding that taxpayer negligent – whether finding of fact – yes – whether susceptible of challenge in Upper Tribunal – appeal dismissed.

McNulty v HMRC; UTTC 25 May 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 174 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Capital gains tax – appeal by taxpayer to First-Tier Tribunal – taxpayer previously a bankrupt – application to strike out appeal – whether taxpayer had locus standi to appeal – whether appeal settled by trustee in bankruptcy in accordance with s. 54 Taxes Management Act 1970.
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 54

Wright v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 26 Sep 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 481 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Hellier, Gort TJJ
UTTC Ratio Proceeding in the absence of the appellant – appellant providing medical certificate not complying with tribunal’s directions – appellant wishing to delay hearing pending complaints procedure -whether decision of tribunal to go ahead perverse – whether account taken of irrelevant matters. Bias – Porter v MacGill – whether decision of tribunal was such as to give rise to a real possibility of bias by reason of extensive reference to a decision which had been set aside. Decision of FTT set side.

Last Update: 28-Apr-16
Ref: 521017

Revenue and Customs v McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd and Another; UTTC 10 Jan 2014

References: [2014] STI 626, [2014] STC 973, [2014] BVC 504, [2014] UKUT 196 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Procedure – Application under Rule 5(3)(a) Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 for extension of time to provide notice of appeal to Upper Tribunal under Rule 23(2)(a) – effect of amendments to CPR 3.9 with effect from 1 April 2013 and Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd – application refused