The claimant said that the widows’ bereavement tax allowance available to a wife surviving her husband should be available to a man also if it was not to be discriminatory.
Held: Similar claims had been taken before the Human Rights Act to the ECHR, and been settled. The 1998 Act made it unlawful to act inconsistently with the Convention, but that obligation was disapplied by s6(2). The revenue said they had no statutory authority to make the allowance requested. S1 of the 1970 Act was not wide enough to give such a power. The appeal was dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Citations:
[2005] UKHL 30, Times 06-May-2005, (2005) 102(25) LSG 33, [2006] STC 270, [2006] 1 All ER 529, [2005] UKHRR 704, [2005] 1 WLR 1718, [2005] STI 904, 77 TC 78
Links:
Statutes:
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 262, Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) 6(2), Taxes Management Act 1970 1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 18-Jun-2003
The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife’s death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Van Raalte v The Netherlands ECHR 21-Feb-1997
A was an unmarried childless man over 45 complaining of a law which exempted unmarried childless women over 45 from paying contributions under the General Child Benefits Act. Apart from the exempted women, the entire adult population was subject to . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Frid HL 13-May-2004
The company went into insolvent liquidation. The secretary of state was to make payments to employees and there were other state preferential creditors. At the same time a refund of VAT was due from the Commissioners of customs and Excise.
Cited – Darby v Sweden ECHR 23-Oct-1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention . .
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Cited – Lustig-Prean and Beckett v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No separate issue under Art. 14+8; Just satisfaction reserved
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Cited – OWD Ltd (T/A Birmingham Cash and Carry) and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Jun-2019
The wholesalers sought approval from the respondent for the wholesale supply of duty-paid alcohol. Approval was refused, but the parties sought a means of allowing a temporary approval pending determination by the FTT. The two questions considered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Income Tax, Discrimination, Human Rights
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.224577
