Grays' Inn Tax Bar Tax Cases
Tax Cases

Some of the cases below are published in Adobe Acrobat form. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader if you don't already have a copy


Dock and Let Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 8 October 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Temple Retail Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 21 July 2014

Michael Firth appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Darren Hills and Lynn Hills v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 2 July 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Capernwray Missionary Fellowship of Torchbearers v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 24 June 2014

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


African Consolidated Resources Plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 11 June 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Felixstowe Dock & railway company Ltd & others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 14 May 2014

Philip Baker QC and Nicola Shaw QC for the Appellants

David Goy QC appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Graham Michael Wildin v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 14 May 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Leigh Day v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 9 May 2014

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Hawksbridge LLP v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 7 May 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Nicholas Green v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 28 April 2014

Patrick Way QC and Michael Firth appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


DB Group Services (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 16 April 2014

David Goy QC and Nicola Shaw QC appeared for the Appellant


Derrin Brother Properties Ltd, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs & Ors - Administative Court - 15 April 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Claimant

Full Transcript


Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company Limited & Others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Justice of the European Union - 1 April 2014

Philip Baker QC and Nicola Shaw QC for the Appellants

David Goy QC appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Littlewoods Retail Limited and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Chancery Division - 28 March 2014

Michael Jones appeared for the Claimants


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v The Executors of Lord Howard of Henderskelfe (Deceased) - Court of Appeal - 19 March 2014

David Goy QC and Aparna Nathan appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Astral Marine Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 19 March 2014

David Goy QC and Michael Jones appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Shop Direct Group v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 11 March 2014

David Goldberg QC and Michael Jones appeared for Appellant


BMC Properties And Management Ltd v Jackson (VO) - Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) - 11 March 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Secret Hotels2 Limited - Supreme Court - 5 March 2014

Nicola Shaw QC appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Finmeccania Group Services SPA v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 27 February 2014

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Andrew Colin Perrin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 26 February 2014

Patrick Way QC and Michael Firth appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Esporta Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 25 February 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Peter Arnett Leisure v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 19 February 2014

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Marks and Spencer plc - Supreme Court - 19 February 2014

Nicola Shaw QC appeared for Marks and Spencer plc

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Mitesh Dhanak - Upper Tribunal - 11 February 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for Mr Dhanak

Full Transcript


Reddrock Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Upper Tribunal - 7 February 2014

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


United Grand Lodge of England v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 3 February 2014

Nicola Shaw QC appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College - Upper Tribunal - 30 January 2014

Michael Jones appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Associated Newspapers Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 24 January 2014

John Walters QC appeared for the Appellants

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Wilton Park Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 23 January 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Julian Blackwell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 20 January 2014

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 17 January 2014

Malcolm Gammie QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Xerox Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 16 January 2014

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Invicta Food Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 10 January 2014

Nicola Shaw QC appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


John Mander Pension Trustees Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 19 December 2013

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellant


DPAS Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 22 November 2013

John Walters QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Anthony Bosher - Upper Tribunal - 19 November 2013

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Brian Pepper v Serious Organised Crime Agency - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 11 October 2013

Ian smith and Hui Ling MCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Caroline Rosen v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 3 September 2013

Michael Firth appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Dhalomal Kishore v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 3 September 2013

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Project Blue Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 5 July 2013

Malcolm Gammie QC and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Anna Scholz Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 19 June 2013

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Nicholas David Telfer v Costas Sakellarios - Commercial Court - 19 June 2013

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Claimant

Alan Gourgey QC and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Defendant

Full Transcript


Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 29 May 2013

David Goldberg QC and Nicola Shaw QC appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Marks and Spencer plc - Supreme Court - 22 May 2013

David Milne QC and Nicola Shaw QC appeared for Marks and Spencer plc

Full Transcript


Hopegar Properties Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 1 May 2013

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


WHA Limited and another v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Supreme Court - 1 May 2013

Roderick Cordara QC, Tim Eicke QC and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Edwards Beers & Minerals Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 1 May 2013

Michael Jones appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


The Trustees of David Zetland Settlement v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 1 May 2013

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Steven Price and others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 30 April 2013

Timothy Brennan QC and Nicola Shaw QC appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Fidex Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 2 April 2013

Michael Flesch QC and Richard Boulton QC appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Edward Allchin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 27 March 2013

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Anthony Barkas v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 13 March 2013

Michael Jones appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Upper Tribunal - 28 February 2013

Christopher Vajda QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Grace (Valuation Officer) & Anor - Administrative Court - 12 February 2013

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Defendant

Full Transcript


John Mander Pension Trustees Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Upper Tribunal - 28 January 2013

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Prudential plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anor - Supreme Court - 23 January 2013

Lord Pannick QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Andrew Chappell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 21 December 2012

David Goy QC and Aparna Nathan appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Secret Hotels2 Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 3 December 2012

David Milne QC and Nicola Shaw QC appeared for the Respondent


Anthony Bosher v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 8 October 2012

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Our Communications Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 26 September 2012

Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellant

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcripts


Vardy Properties (1) Vardy Properties (Teesside) Limited (2) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 6 September 2012

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Garrett Paul Curran v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 14 August 2012

Jonathan Fisher QC and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Responents

Full Transcript


Simon Jones v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 13 August 2012

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Paul Weiser v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 10 August 2012

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


William Blumenthal v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 8 August 2012

Patrick Way and Michael Jones appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Schofield v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 11 July 2012

David Goldberg QC appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Mr Colin Collins v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 19 June 2012

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


TMF Trustees (Singapore) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Court of Appeal - 2 March 2012

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Shop Direct Group & Ors v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 14 February 2012

David Goldberg QC and Michael Jones appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Kuehne + Nagel Drinks Logistics Limited & Ors v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Court of Appeal - 26 January 2012

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


1st Contact Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 25 January 2012

Barrie Akin and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Wildin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 24 January 2012

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Teesside Power Holdings Limited v (1) Electrabel International Holdings B.V. (2) GDF International SAS - Commercial Court - 20 January 2012

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Defendants

Full Transcript


Loudwater Trade and Finance Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 10 January 2012

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcripts


Neiland and others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Adjudicator to HM Land Registry - 16 December 2011

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


John Mander Pension Trustees Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 28 October 2011

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


The Queen (on the application of Robert John Davies and Michael John James) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Supreme Court - 19 October 2011

David Goldberg QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc - Court of Appeal - 14 October 2011

David Milne QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent


Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 18 August 2011

Nicola Shaw and Michael Jones appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Esporta Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 28 September 2011

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


UK Storage Company (SW) Ltd v Commissioner for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 12 August 2011

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Different Kettle Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 9 August 2011

Michael Jones appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Secret Hotels2 Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Upper Tribunal - 29 July 2011

David Milne QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Shiner & Anor, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 25 July 2011

David Goldberg QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Westland Geoprojects Holdings Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - First-tier Tribunal (Tax) - 23 June 2011

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Equity Trust (Singapore) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Chancery Division - 20 May 2011

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Leslie Smith v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Upper Tribunal - 10 May 2011

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Greenbank Holidays Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - Upper Tribunal - 11 April 2011

Christopher Tidmarsh QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Keiran Anthony Rogers v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 11 March 2011

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Deutsche Bank Group Services (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 19 January 2011

David Goy QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant


Mobile Motoring Maintenance Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 14 December 2010

Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents


National Transport Authority v Mauritius Secondary Industry Ltd - Privy Council - 13 December 2010

Philip Baker QC, Rajeshsharma Ramloll and Hui-Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


ITV Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 23 November 2010

David Goldberg QC appeared for the Appellant


RMS Communications Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 26 August 2010

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


John Wilkins (Motor Engineers) Ltd & Ors v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs  - Court of Appeal - 30 July 2010

Michael Conlon QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the 1st to 4th Appellants

Full Transcript


Stockler v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs  - Court of Appeal - 30 July 2010

Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


MJP Media Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs – First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 01 July 2010

David Goldberg QC and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant


Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Marks & Spencer Plc - Upper Tribunal - 22 June 2010

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent


Shiner & Anor, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs - Court of Appeal - 26 May 2010

David Goldberg QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellants


ERF Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs – First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 25 May 2010

Nicola Shaw and Michael Jones appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcipt


Howard Peter Schofield v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs – First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 30 April 2010

David Goldberg QC appeared for the Appellant


Goldman Sachs International v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs – First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 26 April 2010

David Goldberg QC appeared for the Appellants


Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs – Court of Appeal- 16 April 2010

David Goldberg QC for the Appellant

Full Transcipt


Secret Hotels2 Ltd (formerly Med Hotels Ltd) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs – First-Tier Tribunal - 15 March 2010

David Milne QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant


Greenbank Holidays Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs – First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 8 March 2010

Christopher Tidmarsh QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondents


Fryer & Ors v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs  - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 17 February 2010

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondents

Full Trancript


The Queen (on the application of Robert John Davies and Michael John James) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - The Queen (on the application of Robert Gaines-Cooper) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Court of Appeal - 16 February 2010

David Goldberg QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the 1st Appellants

David Milne QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the 2nd Appellant

Full Transcript


Enersys Holdings UK Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 11 Janaury 2010

Michael Conlon QC and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full transcript


James Gillan and Margaret Gillan (t/a Gracehill Golf Course) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 8 Janaury 2010

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Rogers - Chancery Division - 12 November 2009

Laurent Sykes appeared for the Defendant

Full Transcript


The Queen (on the application of the Medical Protection Society Limited) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Administrative Court - 6 November 2009

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Defendants

Full Transcript


The Queen (on the application of Prudential) v Special Commissioner on Income Tax - Administrative Court - 14 October 2009

Peter Whitman QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Claimants

Full Transcript


David Baxendale Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Court of Appeal - 31 July 2009

David Goy QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Jason Drummond v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Court of Appeal - 25 June 2009

Patrick Way and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Timothy Brennan QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Sophie Holdings Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 6 May 2009

Value Added Tax - Assessments under s.73(2) VATA 1994 - Time limit for making assessments - Date when evidence of facts sufficient in the Commissioners' opinion to justify making assessment, came to their notice - s.73(6)(b) VATA 1994 - Assessments out of time - Appeal allowed

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Thomas John Crompton v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Special Commissioners - 7 April 2009

INCOME TAX – compensation payment - connected with termination of employment? – no – appeal allowed

Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Marks and Spencer PLC v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs - First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) - 2 April 2009

EUROPEAN LAW – group relief for losses of non-resident subsidiaries – whether there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account at the date of the group relief claim – no at the date of the original claims which are not valid claims, and yes on 20 March 2007 when the second claims were made  -- appeals allowed in principle

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Timothy Mark Collins - Chancery Division - 20 February 2009

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v David Baxendale Limited - Chancery Division - 5 February 2009

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Haunch of Venison Partners Limited v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs - London Tribunal Centre - December 2008

Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. Alan Blackburn, Alan Blackburn Sports Limited - Court of Appeal - 18 December 2008

Patrick Way and Michael Jones appeared for Respondents

Full Transcript


Philip John Underwood v. Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs - Court of Appeal - 15 December 2008

Patrick Soares and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Jason Drummond v. Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs - Chancery Division - 23 July 2008

Patrick Way and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Timothy Brennan and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


P J Underwood v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs - Chancery Division - 31 January 2008

Patrick C Soares and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Weald Leasing Limited - Chancery Division - 16 January 2008

Michael Conlon QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Robert Gaines-Cooper v Commisioners for HM Revenue and Customs - Chancery Division - 13 November 2007

Michael Flesch QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Total UK Limited - Court of Appeal - 18 October 2007

John Walters QC and Barrie Akin appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


ING Baring Securities (Hong Kong) Limited (formerly known as Baring Securities (Hong Kong) and presently known as Macquarie Securities Limitied) v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue - Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - 5 October 2007

David Goy QC appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Martin Ashley v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Special Commissioners - 30 August 2007

INCOME TAX  –  EIS relief  –  certificate required under section 306(2) TA for claim to be made   –  certificate for shares issued 31 December 2002 – Did it cover shares issued 5 July 2002? – no – no valid claim made so no relief  – appeal dismissed

Patrick Way and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Invicta Foods Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - London Tribunal Centre (Customs) - 13 August 2007

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v. Household Estate Agents Limited - Chancery Division - 12 July 2007

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Jason Drummond v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Special Commissioners - 5 July 2007

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Computation of gain – Second hand life assurance policy – Surrender proceeds brought into computation of chargeable event gain for income tax – Whether surrender proceeds to be excluded as disposal consideration for CGT purposes – No – TCGA 1992 s37(1)

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Acquisition consideration – Wholly and exclusively for the acquisition of the asset – Second hand life assurance policies acquired for £210,000 above surrender value as part of tax avoidance scheme – Whether entire consideration incurred for acquisition of the policies or as part of pre-ordained tax avoidance scheme – Whether alternatively the £210,000 was consideration for acquisition of the policies – No – Appeal dismissed – TCGA s.38(1)

Patrick Way and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Timothy Brennan QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Philip John Underwood v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Special Commissioners - 16 May 2007

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – time of disposal - sale of land - Appellant contracted to sell land and on same day purchaser gave Appellant option to re-purchase – before sale to original purchaser completed Appellant exercised option to re-purchase - Appellant then contracted to sell to a company connected with Appellant - only transfer executed by Appellant was transfer to connected company - whether a disposal of land to, and acquisition by, original purchaser – no - if so, whether date of disposal and acquisition of land for purposes of capital gains tax was date of contract to sell to original purchaser as argued by Appellant – no –appeal dismissed – TCGA 1992 s 28

Patrick Soares and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Kalron Foods Limited v. Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs - Chancery Division - 30 March 2007

Michael Thomas appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Spearmint Rhino Ventures (UK) Limited v. Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs - Chancery Division - 23 March 2007

David Goy QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


The Trustees of the F D Fenston Will Trusts v. Commisioners for HM Revenue and Customs

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Computation of gains – Expenditure – Shares – Capital contributions to Delaware Company – Whether incurred "on the asset" – Yes – Whether reflected in the state or nature of the asset the time of disposal – No – Appeal dismissed – TCGA 1992 s.38(1)(b)

David Goldberg QC and Hui Ling McCarthy appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Irving v. Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs - Chancery Division - 8 February 2007

David Goy QC and Michael Sherry for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Weald Leasing Limited v Commissioners for the HM Revenue and Customs - VAT Tribunal - 7 February 2007

VAT – AVOIDANCE – Abuse of rights – Appellant associate of exempt trader purchasing assets to lease to separate company to lease on to exempt trader – Associate outside VAT group – Associate credited with input tax on purchases – Insertion of separate company avoided direction under VATA 1994 Sch 6 para 1 – Purpose of transaction to avoid or defer VAT of exempt trader – Halifax ECJ [2006] STC 919 considered – Purpose of legislation – Whether transactions contrary to purpose – Redefinition of transactions if abuse – Appeal allowed

Hugh McKay (in 2005) and Nicola Shaw for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Hong Kong) v. Tai Hing Cotton Mill (Development) Limited - Hong Kong Court of Appeal - 22 December 2006

David Goldberg QC and Eugene Fung appeared for the Appellant

Michael Flesch QC, Clifford Smith SC and Neil Thomson appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v. Valentine Marketing Holdings Limited - Chancery Division - 13 November 2006

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


(1) Simon Hinsley (2) Jeremy Milsom v. HM Revenue and Customs - Special Commissioners - 9 November 2006

Employment income - deductions in determining taxable income - airline pilots becoming liable to reimburse training costs incurred earlier in their employment on leaving airline - payment made in tax year after employment ceased - whether, if deductible, deductible in year paid or in year obligation arose - held in the year incurred - whether expense incurred wholly exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties - held no

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


International Masters Publishers v. HM Revenue and Customs - Court of Appeal - 8 November 2006

John Walters QC appeared for the Appellant

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Total UK Limited v. HM Revenue and Customs - Chancery Division - 3 November 2006

John Walters QC appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript

See also article by John Walters QC and Peter Landon regarding this case in the articles section of this website


Robert Gaines-Cooper v. HM Revenue and Customs - Special Commissioners - 31 October 2006

INCOME TAX – preliminary issues – domicile, residence and ordinary residence in tax years 1992/93 to 2003/2004 – Appellant purchased house in the Seychelles in 1975 and obtained a residency permit in 1976 – Appellant indirectly retained house and assets in England – latterly the Appellant’s wife and son resided in England – whether the Appellant retained his domicile of origin in England – yes – or whether Appellant acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles – no – whether the Appellant was resident in the United Kingdom – yes - whether the Appellant was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom – yes – appeal on the preliminary issues dismissed – ICTA 1988 s 336

Michael Flesch QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant

Full Trancript


News Datacom Limited v. Atkinson (HMIT) - Special Commissioners - 6 September 2006

Corporation Tax -- Two first issues  -- (1) Was NDSP resident in UK?  Held resident outside.  (2) Was assessment under section 178 TCGA out of time because section 178(10) was exhaustive?  Held section 178(10) not exhaustive and assessment in time.

David Waksman QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Agassi v. Robinson (HMIT) - House of Lords - 17 May 2006

Patrick Way and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Mohammed Siddiq Khan v. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - Court of Appeal - 23 February 2006

Christopher Vajda QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Wood v. Holden (HMIT) - Court of Appeal - 26 January 2006

David Goldberg QC and Aparna Nathan appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Andre Agassi v. S Robinson (HMIT) (Bar Council and Law Society intervening) - Costs Hearing - Court of Appeal - 2 December 2005

The Court of Appeal's verdict on the efficacy of Licensed Access (formerly Bar Direct)

Patrick Way and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


College of Estate Management v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise - House of Lords - 20 October 2005

Rupert Anderson QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Longborough Festival Opera v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise - VAT Tribunal - 26 May 2005

EXEMPTION – Cultural services – Eligible body- Preclusion from distributing profits – Management and administration on voluntary basis by persons with no financial interest in the body’s activities – Appellant company limited by guarantee having four “trustees”- Trustee undertaking to guarantee losses of Appellant – Same trustee making loans to Appellant – Same trustee owning premises in which Appellant stages operatic productions – Same trustee sole director and majority share holder of commercial company which had financial dealings with Appellant – Whether Appellant managed and administered on voluntary basis by person with no financial interest in its activities – No – EC Sixth Dir, Art 13A.2(a) – VATA 1994, Sch 9, Gp 13, Item 2(b), Note (2)

Hugh McKay and Aparna Nathan appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


British Telecommunications Plc, R (on application of) v. HM Revenue and Customs - Administrative Court - 25 May 2005

Timothy Brennan QC and Nicola Shaw appeared for the Defendant

Full Transcript


Rafferty v. HM Revenue and Customs - Special Commissioners - 19 May 2005

INCOME TAX – Appellant was a self-employed sales associate with Allied Dunbar and on retirement sold his practice to a subsidiary company of Allied Dunbar - whether renewal commissions received after the discontinuance of the trade arose from the carrying on of the trade before the discontinuance – yes - whether on the transfer of the trade there was a permanent discontinuance of the trade by reason of a change in the person carrying on the trade – yes – appeal allowed - ICTA 1988 Ss 103, 106, 110 and 113

ASSESSMENT – discovery of loss of tax – conditions for making assessment – whether the Special Commissioners have jurisdiction to consider whether an assessment falls within section 29(2) – yes – whether the Appellant's tax return was made in accordance with the practice generally prevailing at the time – no – whether the officer of the board could have been reasonably expected on the basis of the information made available to him to be aware that profits which ought to have been assessed to tax had not been assessed – no –TMA 1970 S 29(2) and (5)

David Goldberg QC appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Abbey National PLC v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise - Chancery Division - 6 May 2005

David Goy QC and Claire Simpson appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Khan v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise - Chancery Division - 19 April 2005

Nicola Shaw appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Wood v. Holden (HMIT) - Chancery Division - 8 April 2005

David Goldberg QC and Aparna Nathan appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


UK Tradecorp Ltd, R (on the application of) v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise - Administrative Court - 10 November 2004

Rupert Anderson QC, Hugh McKay and Nicola Shaw for the Defendants

Full Transcript


Jansen Nielsen Pilkes Limited v. Tomlinson (HMIT) - Special Commissioners - 29 March 2004

EU LAW – small companies' rate of corporation tax – whether inclusion of non-resident associated companies in the computation is a restriction on freedom of establishment or discriminatory – no – appeal dismissed

Claire Simpson appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


MEPC Holdings Limited v. Crispin Mark Taylor (HMIT) - House of Lords - 18 December 2003

David Goldberg QC and Barrie Akin appeared for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Collector of Stamp Revenue v. Arrowtown Assets Limited - 4 December 2003

David Goldberg QC and Chua Guan Hock SC appeared for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Venables & Others v. Hornby (HMIT) - House of Lords - 4 December 2003

Conrad McDonnell appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Mansworth (HM Inspector of Taxes) v. Jelley – Court of Appeal – 12 December 2002

This appeal concerned the interaction of s.17 (market value rule), s.28 (timing rule) and s.144(3) (single transaction rule on the exercise of options) Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The taxpayer had been granted share options as a result of his employment outside the United Kingdom and had later exercised those options when he became United Kingdom resident. The issue was whether, as the Revenue said, the taxpayer’s base cost should be the market value of the option at the time of the grant plus the amount actually paid for the exercise of the option (which gave a lower base cost) or, as the taxpayer argued, the market value of the shares at the time that the option was granted. The Court of Appeal, upholding the High Court and Special Commissoners, said that the taxpayer’s arguments were correct.

Tmothy Brennan QC and Hugh McKay appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


St Dunstan’s v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 10-11 October 2002

This case concerned whether the supply of services in relation to works on a protected building were made in the course of approved alteration of that building within Items 2 and 3 of Group 6, Schedule 8, VATA 1994. The Tribunal concluded that they were not since the building was not intended for use solely for a relevant residential purpose or a relevant charitable purpose within Notes 4 and 6 of Group 5, Schedule 8, VATA 1994.

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Vassall Centre Trust v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 4-5 September 2002

This case concerned whether certain supplies modifying a building owned by the Appellant trust could correctly come within the terms of Group 12, Schedule 8 VATA 1994’s supplies to or for the benefit of handicapped persons. Whilst it gave the Tribunal no pleasure to reach that conclusion it concluded that the supplies did not so qualify for zero-rating and that the Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed.

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Kimberly-Clark Limited v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 9-10 September 2002

Kimberly-Clark operated a promotion whereby it sold “Huggies” nappies in a plastic toybox rather than the usual packaging. The toybox would have other uses beyond being the means for selling the Huggies. The first issue was whether there was a single composite supply or there were two multiple supplies. If the former, the supply of the toybox would be part of the composite zero-rated supply of the nappies under Item 1, Group 16, Schedule 8 VATA 1994. If not it would be a separate standard-rated supply. The Tribunal concluded in the Commissioners’ favour.

The second issue was whether there was a disposal of business assets for no consideration and whether the “small gifts” exception in paragraph 5, Schedule 4, VATA 1994 applied. Again the Tribunal considered it did not.

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Nutri (Imports & Exports) Limited v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 18-20 June 2002

This is a Customs duties classification case regarding certain products imported by the Appellant. The issue was whether the products, which might broadly be described as alternative medicine products, should be classified as organic chemicals, pharmaceutical products or, as the Commissioners asserted, effectively food preparations. The Commissioners succeeded in this case as the Tribunal concluded that all of the preparations were correctly to be classified as edible products.

Hugh McKay instructed by Titmuss Sainer Dechert for the Appellants

Full Transcript


Dextra Accessories Limited v. MacDonald (HM Inspector of Taxes) – Special Commissioners – 22-25 July 2002

There were two issues in this case. The first issue was whether contributions paid by the Appellant companies were immediately deductible from those companies’ profits or should have the tax deduction deferred within the terms of s.43(11) Finance Act 1989. The second issue was whether sub-funds and loan from sub-funds in respect of the individual Appellants were subject to Schedule E income tax using, amongst other things, the principles described in W T Ramsay v. IRC and MacNiven v. Westmoreland Investments Limited. The Special Commissioners decided in favour of the taxpayers on both points.

Timothy Brennan QC and Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


SOC Private Capital Limited v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 13-15 May 2002

This case concerned the extent of the exemption concerning supplies of insurance and supplies of financial services. Taxpayers were members agents at Lloyd’s and the first issue was whether the members agents were insurance agents and the Tribunal concluded that they were. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellants did not make supplies of financial services. The relevant legislation was Article 13B(a) and (d)(3) of the Sixth Directive and reference was also made to the Article 2 of the Insurance Directive.

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Mr Y Lai and Mrs M Y Lai v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 7 May 2002

The Appellants applied for disclosure of certain “unused material” arguing that in relation to civil penalty proceedings the implication of the Human Rights Acts and the European Convention on Human Rights meant that the Commissioners should disclose all material prior to the taxpayers being required to lodge their defence. The President of the Tribunal revisited what he had said earlier in Nene Packaging Limited v. CCE and dismissed the taxpayers’ application.

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Co-Work Camphill Limited v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise – VAT Tribunal – 4 June 2001 & 28 February 2002

This is a case which considered whether certain building works were to be zero-rated (as the Appellant argued) as supplies of construction of a building intended solely for relevant residential or relevant charitable use. The relevant statutory provisions were Item 2 and Notes 4, 5, 6, 16 and 18 of Group 8, Schedule 5 VATA 1994. The Commissioners were successful and the Tribunal concluded that the works did not constitute works of construction but were merely works of alteration.

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Look Ahead Housing and Care v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise – VAT Tribunal – 28 March 2002

The issue in this case was whether the provision of short term accommodation in hostels for homeless and rough sleepers were exempt supplies of welfare services or standard rated supplies of accommodation. The Appellant argued for the latter which enabled it to recover sums of input tax. The relevant statutory provisions were Item 1D and Note 9 of Group 1, Schedule 9 VATA 1994 and Item 9 and Notes 6 and 7 of Group 7, Schedule 9 VATA 1994. The taxpayer Appellant was successful.

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


University of Bristol v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise – VAT Tribunal –16 July 2001

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


Acorn Management Services Limited v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise – VAT Tribunal – 31 Julyl 2001

Acorn provided accommodation for students from US universities in Central London. The issue was whether the accommodation was an exempt supply of land (as the taxpayer argued) or a taxable provision of accommodation in a hotel or similar establishments (as the Commissioners said). The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioners.

David Goldberg QC appeared for the Appellant

Hugh McKay appeared for the Respondents

Full Transcript


QED Marine v. CCE – VAT Tribunal – 26 June 2001

This appeal concerned a self build partnership who were constructing a Dutch barge as their permanent living accommodation. They sought zero-rating treatment for supplies made to them during construction on the basis that the boat was a “qualifying ship” within the meaning of Schedule 8 of VATA 1994. The Tribunal held, however, that until a ship had been completed sufficiently to render it seaworthy it could not properly be described as a qualifying ship.

Hugh McKay, appeared for the Respondents

Full transcript


Royal Midland Counties Home for Disabled People v. CCE – Chancery Division – 20 June 2001

Royal Midland Counties Homes for Disabled People concerns an appeal from the VAT and Duties Tribunal by the charity, called Castel Froma, against Customs’ refusal to zero-rate their purchase of a backup generator. Castel Froma’s argument was that the generator was zero-rated as an accessory under Legal Note 3(c), Group 15, Schedule 8 VATA 1994. The judge agreed with the charity’s analysis. He said that the test was a subjective test, not an objective test as had been found by the Tribunal. One must look at the circumstances in which the taxpayer acquired the particular item to decide whether it was an accessory or not within the meaning of the legislation.

Hugh McKay, appeared for the Appellant

Full transcript


West Devon Borough Council v. CCE – Queen’s Bench Division – 24 July 2001

West Devon Borough Council (“the Council”) carried out works of improvement to the Wharf at Tavistock with a view to generating jobs, tourism and generally improving the economy of that part of West Devon. The Council obtained a grant of £336,000 odd from European Union towards the reconstruction work which were in the sum of £830,000. The Wharf was to be occupied by an Arts Centre. The Council entered into a lease at a premium of £130,000 together with a peppercorn rent thereafter. The duration of the lease was 35 years. The Council sought to recover the input tax in respect of the building works under s.33 VATA 1993.

The Commissioners refused and the Council appealed to the Tribunal where it was unsuccessful. It further appealed to the High Court, again, its appeal was dismissed. The judge held that its supplies were not “non-business” within the meaning of s.33 VATA. An argument based on s.73(1) and s.73(2) VATA 1994 also was unsuccessful.

Hugh McKay, instructed by Dario Garcia, appeared for the Council

Full Transcript


Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust v. CCE – VAT Tribunal –14 July 2001

The issue in this appeal is first whether there should be an apportionment for the provision of services consisting of the supply of telephone equipment and photocopying services from the supply of office accommodation under a tenancy agreement. If the supply is a separate supply of services, the issue arises whether it is supplied for consideration during the rent and service charge-free period under the tenancy agreement. Appeal dismissed in relation to the telephone equipment and allowed in relation to the photocopying services.

Nicola Shaw, instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse, appeared for the Appellant

Full Transcript


Carstairs (HMIT) v. Sykes – Chancery Division – 2 November 2000

The taxpayer was not resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom from 15 June 1987 to 15 February 1993. He appealed that against an assessment to income tax for the year 1993-94 on the ground that he was entitled to a foreign earnings deduction pursuant to s.193(1) ICTA 1988. He claimed that he was entitled to include the period of his absence from the United Kingdom in aggregating the qualifying period, in respect of which the deduction fell to be calculated, on the ground that there was nothing in the 1988 Act that confined the qualifying period to the time at which he was resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. The qualifying period was defined in para 3 of Schedule 12 to the 1998 Act by reference to “days of absence” from the United Kingdom. The General Commissioners allowed the taxpayer’s appeal and the Revenue appealed.

Nicola Shaw, instructed by Terence St John Millett, appeared for the Taxpayer

Full Transcript


Parents and Children Together v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise – VAT Tribunal – 5 June 2001

This case concerned a society which arranged adoptions for girls in orphanages in China with parents in Oxfordshire. The society argued that the supplies should be exempt from VAT as supplies of welfare for children or alternatively international services. The Tribunal disagreed. The services were supplied to the prospective adoptive parents and not the children and where thus insufficiently connected with the welfare of the children themselves and they were supplied in the United Kingdom.

Hugh McKay, instructed by the Solicitor of Customs & Excise, for the Respondent

Full Transcript


Venables & Others v. Hornby (HMIT) – Chancery Division - 27 April 2001

The case concerns directors' entitlement to draw a pension on early retirement. The taxpayer retired as an executive director (and acting managing director) of the company aged 53, and drew a pension. The Revenue argued that because the taxpayer remained a director of the company thereafter (albeit an unremunerated non-executive director) then he could not have 'retired', and accordingly the Revenue assessed the pension payents to tax under s.600 ICTA 1988 as being unauthorised payments out of the pension fund.

Held: 'retirement' for pensions purposes meant the cessation of active, remunerated employment. The taxpayer had retired within the meaning of the pension trust deed and rules in this case.

Obiter: following Hillsdown Holdings v. IRC (1999), even if the payments had been unauthorised, if the recipient had been an actual or constructive trustee and had in fact been in a position to repay the monies to the pension fund, no charge to tax would have arisen under s.600.

Conrad McDonnell, instructed by Warner & Richardson, appeared on behalf of the Appellants

Full transcript


The Queen On the Application of Greenwich Property Limited v. The Commissioners of Customs & Excise – 28 March 2001

This was an application for a Judicial Review following the VAT Tribunal’s holding that it could not hear the Appellant’s appeal. It concerned the application of certain guidelines issued by the Commissioners to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities in the United Kingdom and the extent to which they could be relied upon by a particular university. Greenwich Property Limited succeeded in showing that it had a “legitimate expectation” before the Administrative Court and its application for Judicial Review was therefore allowed.

Hugh McKay, instructed by the Solicitor of Customs & Excise, for the Respondent

Full transcript


A Subhan, M Uddin & M Mustak (t/a Jube Raj) – VAT Tribunal – 26 February 2001

This was a preliminary hearing on a matter raised by the Appellant. It concerned the point when an assessment to VAT is “made” for the purpose of the legislation. The Tribunal declined to follow the Edinburgh VAT Tribunal in the Royal Bank of Scotland case and held that an assessment is made when the officer decides on the amount to be entered and enters on Form 641 which he then signs and checks.

Hugh McKay, instructed by the Solicitor of Customs & Excise, for the Respondent

Full transcript


Dinaro Limited t/a Fairway Lodge – VAT Tribunal– 16 March 2000

The Appellant in this case provided accommodation in the form of a “halfway house” for people with mental health problems. The issue was whether the provision of accommodation was exempt from VAT under either Group 1 or Group 7 of Schedule 9 VAT Act 1994. If it was within Group 1 of Schedule 9 the further issue arose of whether the Appellant was excluded from exemption by Item 1(d) Note 9 to Group 1 as offering sleeping accommodation similar in nature to an hotel. In the Appellant’s particular circumstances it was held not to be such a similar establishment. Therefore this appeal was allowed.

Hugh McKay, instructed by the Solicitor of Customs & Excise, for the Respondent

Full transcript


D L Marketing (Direct Link) Limited v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 24 November 2000

This was an appeal by a company which described itself as a “print broker” against the Commissioners decision that it made standard-rated supplies of advertising services rather than zero-rated supplies of printed material. The taxpayer succeeded on the basis that there were supplies of printed material and that zero-rating properly applied.

Hugh McKay, instructed by the Solicitor of Customs & Excise, for the Respondent

Full transcript


Express Medicare Limited v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 24 November 2000

The Appellant had provided incontinence pads to nursing homes for named residents. The issue was whether the supply of those incontinence pads was zero-rated within the terms of Group 12, item 2(g), Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994. The Commissioners took the view that they were not and they assessed them as standard-rated by reason of s.47(2A) VATA 1994. The Commissioners argued that the supplies of the incontinence pads had been made to the nursing homes, and not to the handicapped persons by virtue of that provision. The Tribunal did not accept the Commissioners argument and it took an examination of both English and French and other language versions of Article 5.4(c) of the Sixth EC VAT Directive. They took the view that the English language version differs radically from the French version and that the English language version incorrectly dealt with the term “contrat de commission”.

In allowing the taxpayers appeal the Tribunal held (see, in particular, paragraph 48 of the decision) that the words “acts in his own name” in s.47(2A) VATA 1994 do not cover an agent acting expressly on behalf of a named principal. The wording of that provision cannot be reconciled with Article 5.4(c) in the English version which itself is different from the French version. Section 47(2A) treats goods in the way of services whereas they are covered by different articles of the Directive with totally different wording. Section 47(2A) did not apply the services and the appeal was therefore allowed.

Hugh McKay, instructed by the Solicitor of Customs & Excise, for the Respondent

Full transcript


Keesing (UK) Limited v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – VAT Tribunal – 26 June 2000

This case concerns the analysis of the arrangements which the Appellant magazine publishing company made with the distributors. It was important to discern whether Keesing acted as agent or principal. If the distributor was the agent of the publisher it would be possible for the Appellant to take advantage of the Extra Statutory Concession in relation to free gifts forming less than 20% of the total cost of a publication which then enjoy zero-rating treatment for printed material. The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal found that the Appellant and its distributor both acted as principals. However, the case is important because it demonstrates the costs so that the Tribunal is prepared to award costs against the Commissioners where they fail to comply with their directions. A directions hearing had been held in February 2000 and one of the directions was that all witness statement should be served no later than 20 days before the hearing. The Commissioners witness statement was served 4 days before the date of the hearing and the Tribunal made an award of costs in the Appellants favour as a result.

Hugh McKay, instructed by Messrs. Fraser Russell (now merged with Baker Tilly), for the Appellant

Full transcript


MEPC Holdings Limited v. Crispin Mark Taylor (HMIT) – Special Commissioners – 27 September 2000

The group relief rules contain special provisions for computing the amount of relief which can be surrendered by one member of the group to another. This case is about how those rules apply where a company has chargeable gains in a period but allowable losses arising in earlier periods which reduce or eliminate chargeable gain. The question is whether the chargeable gain reduces the amount of relief available for surrender. It was widely thought that it did. But this case establishes that it does not.

David Goldberg QC (instructed by Messrs PricewaterhouseCoopers, Chartered Accountants) for the Appellant

Full transcript


John Gerald Gray (t/a William Gray & Sons) v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise – Chancery Division – 23 August 2000

The issue in this case was whether one is required to use a forward looking approach to taxable turnover under paragraph 1(3) Schedule 1 VATA 1994 or use the benefit of hindsight. Both the Tribunal and the High Court took the view that a forward looking approach only was permissible. The High Court explained that to allow a taxpayer who failed to comply with the unequivocal rules set out in Schedule 1 of VATA 1994 would be to put that taxpayer in a better position than a taxpayer who had properly complied with all those obligations. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Hugh McKay (instructed by HM Customs & Excise) for the Respondents

Full transcript


THI Leisure Two Partnership v. The Commissioners of Customs & Excise – 20 October 2000

This case concerned which of s.78 VATA 1994 and s.79 VATA 1994 (interest or repayment supplement) applied in cases of sums not paid to taxpayers as a result of the Commissioner’s error. The taxpayer argued that both actually could apply, the Commissioners argued that only could apply. The taxpayer was successful and obtained both interest and repayment supplements in respect of sums wrongly overpaid to the Commissioners.

Hugh McKay (instructed by The Solicitor for HM Customs & Excise) for the Respondents

Full transcript


Michael Black (1) Stephen Brown (2) Gregory Green (3) Malcolm White (4) v. HMIT – SC 3106-9/99

The appellants appealed against various assessments to income tax under Schedule E. The amounts appealed against were received by the Appellants in the form of units in a unit trust provided to them by their employer. It was agreed that the amounts were taxable under Schedule E as emoluments from employment. The issue was whether the employer ought to have deducted income tax under s.203 ICTA 1988 and the 1973 Regulations before providing the units to the Appellants. The Commissioner held that the employer ought to have deducted income tax before providing units to the Appellants. Importantly (though this was not argued by the Taxpayers) the Commissioner held that the transfer of units in a unit trust was a “payment” within s.203 ICTA 1988.

Hugh McKay (instructed by The Taylors Partnership, Chartered Accountants) for the Appellants

Full transcript


Sports Club (1) Evelyn (2) Jocelyn (3) v. HM Inspector of Taxes – SC 3114-16/99

Taxes Act 1988 ss. 19, 154, 203 and 595 – Appeal allowed.

David Goldberg QC and Hugh McKay (instructed by Lawrence Jones) for the taxpayers

Full transcript


West Herts College v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise – Tribunal No: LON/99/0749 - 17 July 2000

VATA 1994 Schedule 4 paragraph 5(1)(2), EEC Sixth Directive Article 5(4) – Appeal allowed.

Hugh McKay (instructed by The Solicitor for Customs & Excise) for the Commissioners (under appeal)

Full transcript


Greenwich Property Limited v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise – Tribunal No: LON/99/1133 - 20 July 2000

VATA 1994 s.84(10) and VATTR 1986 Rule 6(1)

Extra-statutory concession prior decision appeal with respect to application of non-statutory concession (known as “the Concordat”) of Tribunal. Whether Concordat was not application was a “prior decision” within the meaning of s.84(10) upon which the decision to not allow input tax relief depended – answer: no.

And see also East Dorset Housing Association v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Hugh McKay instructed by the Solicitors of Customs & Excise for the Respondents

Full transcript


Medivac Healthcare Limited v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise – Tribunal No: LON/99/1271 - 8 September 2000

Medivac is a company which manufactures goods specially designed for asthmatics and people suffering from acute rhinitis and eczema. In particular it manufactures a vacuum cleaner which uses a special filter designed to arrest even the most minute particles of dust as well as special bedding covers, a dehumidifier, an anti-allergen spray and an allergen medication system.

Customs carried out a review of the application of zero rating under item 2(g) Group 12 Schedule 8 VATA 1994 in relation to the supply of such goods for asthmatics and rhinitis and eczema sufferers and concluded that they were no longer capable of qualifying for zero rating

The Commissioners then applied this treatment specifically to the appellants products which it disputed and it appealed to the Tribunal.

Before the Tribunal the two primary issues were for whom were the Appellants products designed and were those people “handicapped”, which in that context and by virtue of Note 3 to Group 12 ibid. means “chronically sick or disabled”.

On the first issue the managing director of the appellants company who had been involved at all stages in the design process of all the items, and was the designer of the vacuum cleaner, gave evidence which was accepted by the Tribunal that the main purpose for which each of the products was designed was to reduce house dust mite allergen or to neutralise the allergens effect in those who were sensitive to it.

On the second issue expert evidence was given by Professor Ayres, Professor of Respiratory Medicine at Warwick University and a consultant at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, explained that asthma is commonly described by reference to five steps. Step one being the mildest and step five being the most severe. A patient at step four or five will usually be chronically symptomatic and may be unable to work and quite often will be permanently impaired. When a sufferer falls within those steps he would be encouraged to look seriously at trigger factors which may include house dust mite allergen. Professor Ayres also described the term “chronic” in medical terms as meaning a condition that is long standing and not as implying a level of severity. He went on to summarise:

“Overall, therefore, asthma, rhinitis and eczema are all chronic diseases and a cause of disability in a proportion of some, but not all, patients. One of the major causes of these three conditions is allergic sensitisation to the house dust mite ... I would recommend the use of mite controlled exposure in those patients who I would register as chronically sick or disabled as they experience significant distress or degradation of quality of life.”

There was also a subsidiary issue as to whether the anti-allergen spray was “equipment or appliance” and the Tribunal accepted it was.

Hugh McKay (instructed by Messrs. Travers Smith Braithwaite) for the Appellant through the Bar Pro Bono Unit

Full Transcript


(1) Shiu Wing Limited (2) Futurian Limited (3) Shiu Kwong Limited v. The Commissioner of Estate Duty - 12 July 2000

This is a landmark decision in Hong Kong.

The Deceased entered into a number of transactions, the essential element in each being a disposal by him of Hong Kong property to an Isle of Man Unit Trust. The end result of each transaction – viewing the facts from the most favourable Revenue viewpoint – was that the Deceased transferred his Hong Kong property to an Isle of Man Unit Trust in consideration of the Unit Trust issuing units to an Isle of Man Discretionary Trust for the benefit of the Deceased’s family. The Hong Kong Revenue argued that, applying the Ramsay principle to the admittedly pre-ordained series of transactions, the Deceased had made a gift of property situate in Hong Kong which was liable to estate duty because the Deceased failed (by 2 days) to survive the 3 year gift period.

In the High Court Findlay J. held that, even on the worst view of the facts from the taxpayer’s viewpoint, the Deceased’s gift was of non-Hong Kong property, i.e. units in the Isle of Man Unit Trust. The Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 majority, reversed Findlay J. The Court of Final Appeal has now unanimously (5-0) restored Findlay J.’s decision.

The case is extremely important in Hong Kong, first, in that it indicates for the first time the Court of Final Appeal’s approach to the Ramsay principle and, secondly, because it upholds the effectiveness of arrangements that have been regularly used in Hong Kong in order to avoid estate duty.

Michael Flesch QC, Robert Kotewell SC and Eugene Fung (instructed by Messrs. Simmons & Simmons) for the appellants

Full transcript


R. v. Special Commissioner of Income Tax ex parte CIR AND R v. CIR ex parte Ulster Bank Ltd - [2000] STC 537 (QBD)

This is an astonishing decision. It decides that a role apparently given to the Board of Inland Revenue can be performed by a generally authorised officer who is not a member of the Board. The point arose in the context of notices which can be served under s.20 of the Taxes Management Act and undermines the apparent safeguards in the section for notices given by the Board. The issue in this case is similar to that in ex parte Davis Frankel Mead (QB). An appeal has been lodged against this part of the decision.

The good thing about Ulster Bank is that the Revenue made an agreement not to apply for consent to issue a notice after a certain date. They were held bound by this agreement. This is a most important and encouraging development even if the Judgement is somewhat grudging about the achievement.

David Goldberg QC and Clive Lewis appeared for Ulster Bank Limited

Full transcript


Carr (HMIT) v. Armpledge Ltd – Carr (HMIT) v. Fielden & Ashworth Ltd - unreported as yet

Carry back of surplus ACT and the order in which claims are to be given effect to – s.239(3) ICTA 1988.

Decision of Ferris J reversed. The taxpayers were entitled to have their claims to carry back surplus ACT in respect of different accounting periods given effect to in the order in which the claims were made. The taxpayers made claims pursuant to s.239(3) ICTA 1988 to carry back surplus ACT in respect of a particular accounting period and then subsequently made claims to carry back surplus ACT in respect of an earlier accounting period. The taxpayers required effect to be given to the earlier claim in respect of the later accounting period before the later claim in respect of the earlier accounting period. The Revenue contended that the claims should be given effect to in the chronological order of the accounting periods. Held: the taxpayers were entitled to effect being given to their claims in the order in which they were made.

Lord Goldsmith QC and David Goy QC appeared for the taxpayers

Full transcript


Walker (Inspector of Taxes) v. Centaur Clothes Group Ltd - [2000] STC 324, [2000] 1 WLR 799

Corporation tax. Accounting periods. "Within the charge to tax" - s.832(1) ICTA 1988.
Decision of Court of Appeal (Click here) reversed. ACT paid on a dividend could be carried back and set against an earlier year's corporation tax so long as the dividend was paid in an accounting period of the company (s.239(3) ICTA 1988). The taxpayer company ceased trading on 6 January 1992 and accordingly an accounting period then ended. No new accounting period started (s.12(2) ICTA 1988) unless the company continued to be "within the charge to corporation tax". The company had no source of income after 6 January 1992 until 30 September 1993 when it placed £2000 in an interest-bearing deposit account. The Inland Revenue contended that between 6 January 1992 and 30 September 1993 the company was not within the charge to corporation tax and therefore had no accounting period and so could not carry back ACT.

Held: because the company actually became liable to pay corporation tax (in this case ACT, which is a kind of corporation tax) it was "within the charge to corporation tax" at the relevant time and so had an accounting period.

David Goldberg QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the taxpayer

Full transcript


Trustees of British Telecom Pension Scheme & others v. Clark (HMIT) (Court of Appeal) 24 February 2000

Appeal from the Decision of Lightman J of 14 October 1998 (Click here)
Sub-underwriting activities of the Post Office and British Telecom Pension schemes did not constitute trading within Case I of Schedule D. Instead, the sub-underwriting itself formed an integral part of the schemes’ investment process and took its colour therefrom. Accordingly the sub-underwriting commission was income chargeable under Case VI of Schedule D, but exempted by s.592(3) ICTA 1988.

In the context of s.686(2)(c) ICTA 1988, the word “property” was not wide enough to encompass a trade. Therefore, s.686(2)(c) did not exempt pension fund trading income from the additional trade of tax applicable to trusts.

Michael Flesch QC and Felicity Cullen appeared for the pension fund trustees

Full transcript


Nationwide Access Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise (High Court) 14 February 2000

Appeal from the Decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal
Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 - whether vehicle with telescopic boom constituted “mobile crane”

The Tribunal had held that lifting vehicles with telescopic booms rather than ropes and pulleys were not “mobile cranes” for the purposes of Schedule 1, paragraph 9 Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979. This appeal by the taxpayer was allowed. The judge said that the Tribunal’s approach gave an unduly restrictive meaning to “mobile crane”. Instead a modernising construction was appropriate and the vehicles were mobile cranes.

Hugh McKay appeared for Customs & Excise

Full transcript


The Commissioners of Customs & Excise v. GIL Insurance Limited & Others (High Court) 16 February 2000

Tribunal – procedure – application to strike out – preliminary issues – correct approach – VAT Tribunal Rules 1986, rule 18, rule 19(3)

The Tribunal has a wide discretion in relation to the width of proceedings before it; the court should be slow to interfere with the Tribunals decision on interlocutory matters, and only where the tribunal was plainly wrong either through an error of law or by reaching a decision that is Wednesbury unreasonable. Rule 19 gives the tribunal discretion for its own proceedings, including (most probably) power to strike out parts of pleadings in appropriate cases; rule 18 does not give the tribunal power to strike out part only of an appeal.

The Tribunal adopted the correct approach in asking itself whether there were reasonable grounds for the raising of the state and issue. The taxpayers did have an arguable case. The Tribunal took a reasonable approach.

Similarly, in relation to preliminary issues the tribunal was fully entitled to take the view that none of the suggested preliminary issues would necessarily be decisive of the case; none could be determined as a pure question of law in isolation – from buildings of fact, none was short and easily decided; and that it was preferable for all issues to be decided together at a substantive hearing.

David Vaughan QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the respondents

Full Transcript


EMI Group Electronics Ltd v Coldicott (Court of Appeal) 16 July 1999

Income tax. Schedule E. PILONs (Payments in Lieu of Notice).

Two employees had notice periods of six months. The contract of employment provided for the contract to be terminated, either on the giving of six months notice, or, at the employer's option, on the giving of less notice and the making of a payment in lieu of notice. The employees became redundant and were dismissed with notice of 1 day and 10 days respectively. Payments in lieu of notice were made in accordance with the employment contracts.

The issue was whether such payments were emoluments from the employment (s.19 ICTA 1988) in which case they were taxable, or not, in which case they were in principle taxable under s.148 ICTA 1988 but with the benefit of the £30,000 exemption under s.188(4) ICTA 1988 [now see Schedule 11 ICTA 1988].

Held: the termination provisions, whereby the employee was entitled to six months notice or an equivalent payment, produced security or continuity of employment or at least salary, and were one of the inducements for the employee to enter into the contract of employment. The PILONs were thus payments from "being or becoming an employee", as in Shilton v Wilmshurst. PILONs could not be likened to redundancy payments, which fell outside the scope of s.19 ICTA 1988, because the reason for providing the PILON was to allow for continuity of salary over the time it might take to find alternative employment: unlike a redundancy payment, it was not to relieve the hardship consequent upon becoming unemployed. These PILONs were taxable under s.19 as emoluments from the employment. Mairs v Haughey [1994] 1 AC 303 distinguished.

Andrew Thornhill Q.C. and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the employer

Full transcript


Walker (Inspector of Taxes) v. Centaur Clothes Group Ltd [1998] STC 814 (C.A.)

Corporation tax. Accounting periods. "Within the charge to tax" - s.832(1) ICTA 1988.
Decision of Vinelott J (Click here) upheld. ACT paid on a dividend cannot be carried back and set against an earlier year's corporation tax unless the dividend was paid in an accounting period of the company (s.239(3) ICTA 1988). The taxpayer company ceased trading on 6 January 1992 and accordingly an accounting period then ended. No new accounting period started (s.12(2) ICTA 1988) unless the company continued to be "within the charge to corporation tax". The company had no source of income after 6 January 1992, with the result that after that date it was not within the charge to corporation tax and had no accounting period until 30 September 1993 when it placed £2000 in an interest-bearing deposit account.

David Goldberg QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the taxpayer

Full transcript


Clark v Trustees of British Telecom Pension Scheme & others (Chancery Division) 14 October 1998

When a company listed on the London Stock Exchange makes a public issue of shares or rights, the issue may be underwritten. The underwriter, for a commission, agrees to purchase a proportion of any unsold shares at the offer price - the underwriter accepts the risk of a fall in the market during the offer period. The underwriter often lays off the risk by inviting large pension funds, and other similar large investors, to enter into sub-underwriting agreements; the fund receives a commission for so doing.

The appellant pension funds (the British Telecom Pension Scheme, also known as 'Hermes'; the Post Office Staff Superannuation Scheme; and the Post Office Pension Scheme) sub-underwrote public issues made by various companies. In every case, the fund already had a significant investment in the company concerned. In cases where the pension fund was obliged to honour its sub-underwriting commitment, it usually retained the stock or rights so acquired.
Section 592(3) ICTA 1988 exempts from tax the underwriting commission income received by an exempt approved scheme where that income is Schedule D Case VI income. Trading income (i.e. Schedule D Case I income) received by such a pension fund is not, however, exempt from tax. Section 686(2)(c) ICTA 1988 provides that income from investments, deposits or other property held for the purposes of certain classes of pension scheme is not subject to the additional rate of tax applicable to discretionary trusts.

Held: The Special Commissioners were incorrect in holding that the sub-underwriting activities of the pension funds did not constitute trading. The only conclusion (on this question of fact and degree) which the Special Commissioners could have reached if properly directed in law was that the pension funds in respect of their sub-underwriting activity were trading. The sub-underwriting commission income was accordingly taxable under Schedule D Case I and was not exempt under s.592(3) ICTA 1988.

Section 686(2)(c) ICTA 1988 exempts only the fruits of ownership of trust property held for the designated purposes; it does not exempt the fruits of activities carried on by trustees. Accordingly, pension fund trading income is not exempted from the additional rate of tax applicable to trusts.

Michael Flesch QC and Felicity Cullen appeared for the pension fund trustees

Full Transcript


United Friendly Insurance plc v IRC (Chancery Division) 22 April 1998

Life Assurance Premium Relief. Reg. 10(6), Income Tax (LAPR) Regulations 1978.
Under this system of relief, withdrawn on 13 March 1984, individual policyholders deducted income tax from life assurance premiums paid, and the life office then recovered such amounts ("the deficiencies") from the Inland Revenue. In this case there was a substantive issue concerning whether certain policies were written before of after 13 March 1984 - deficiencies had been recovered in respect of such policies between 1984 and 1991, and the Inland Revenue now claimed that overpayments of relief had been made. The Inland Revenue was out of time to raise an assessment for such overpayments. A preminary question for determination, raised by originating summons, was whether regulation 10(6) of the 1978 Regulations permits the Inland Revenue to recover any such overpayments without raising an assessment.

Held: regulation 10(6) does confer on the Inland Revenue an immediate enforceable right to recover overpayments made by it, if it succeeds on the substantive issue.

David Goy QC and Philip Baker appeared for the life office

Full transcript


Girvan v Orange Personal Communication Services Ltd (Chancery Division) 3 April 1998

Interest. Whether or not "income arising". Receivability without receipt.

The taxpayer opened two deposit accounts with Barclays Bank plc on 12 March 1990, and deposited substantial amounts in them. The accounts were the bank's standard business deposit accounts, providing for interest to be paid quarterly in arrear. The bank subsequently agreed to vary the standard terms and conditions, agreeing at the taxpayer's behest to "roll up" the interest until January 1993, or the earlier date of closure of the accounts.

The Revenue contended that income arose to the taxpayer as the interest accrued quarterly; the taxpayer contended that no income arose until the date of payment.

Held: The interest was not "income arising" until paid to the taxpayer, i.e. credited to an account in the taxpayer's name. The taxpayer could not be said to have received the interest merely by virtue of the fact that it had directed the bank what to do with it: the direction given to the bank was given at a time before the first quarter's interest had become payable, i.e. it was a direction in respect of a prospectively due debt, and not of a sum of money which had already accrued to the taxpayer. The Ramsay principle, as explained by Lord Steyn in IRC v McGuckian [1997] STC 908, was not applicable to this genuine arrangement between the parties, even though effected for tax reasons.


David Goldberg QC appeared for the taxpayer

Full transcript


Aberdeen Milk Co Ltd v IRC (Special Commissioners) 6 March 1998

Statutory interpretation. Carry back of surplus ACT. McGuckian principle applied.
The taxpayer was incorporated in 1993. Under Agriculture Act 1993, it was permitted to take over the trade and function of the Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Board ("the Board"). The taxpayer paid a dividend in 1996, and sought to carry back the ACT and set it against the MCT paid by the Board in 1990. The Agriculture Act 1993, Schedule 2 para.1, provides that the taxpayer is to be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as having carried on the Board's trade at times when the Board actually carried on that trade.

The Inland Revenue sought to deny set off of the taxpayer's ACT against the Board's MCT since the two were strictly speaking two different companies.

The Special Commissioners accepted the taxpayer's argument that a purposive approach to construction (as explained in IRC v McGuckian [1997] STC 908) should be applied to Schedule 2 of the Agriculture Act 1993, and since it was clearly Parliament's intention that the transfer of the trade from the Board to the taxpayer should be tax neutral, the carry back of ACT of the former to set against MCT of the latter was permitted.

Hugh McKay appeared for the taxpayer

Full transcript

See also Article by Nicola Shaw


Bestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (Chancery Division) 20 February 1998

Industrial Buildings Allowance. The taxpayer, which operated cash and carry warehouses, sought to obtain IBAs on the ground that the buildings were used "for the purposes of a trade which consists in the storage ... of goods" (CAA 1990, s.7(1)(f)).

Goods were stacked up to ceiling height in the warehouses; on average, around 6 weeks' supply of each type of goods was held, assuming normal volume of sales

Held: The determining factor is the purpose for which the goods are kept or held. In this case, they were only stored to be available for self-service by customers, which was a necessary incident of the business of a wholesale supermarket; on the other hand, "storage" in s.7(1)(f) CAA 1990 means storage as a purpose and end in itself.

David Goy QC and Aparna Nathan appeared for the taxpayer

Full transcript


Trustees of British Telecom Pension Scheme & others v Clarke (Special Commissioners) 16 December 1997

In a landmark decision for pension funds, the Special Commissioners held that the sub-underwriting activities of the Post Office and BT schemes did not constitute trading within Case I of Schedule D, rather that the underwriting itself formed an integral part of the schemes' investment process and took its colour therefrom. Accordingly the underwriting commission was income chargeable under Case VI of Schedule D, but exempted by s.592(3) ICTA 1988.

When companies listed on the London Stock Exchange make public issues of shares or rights, the issue may be underwritten. The underwriter, for a commission, agrees to purchase a proportion of any unsold shares at the offer price - the underwriter takes the risk of a fall in the market during the offer period. The underwriter often lays off the risk by inviting large pension funds, and other similar large investors, to enter into sub-underwriting agreements; the fund receives a commission for so doing. The appellant funds sub-underwrote various public issues in this way. In each case, the fund already had a significant investment in the company concerned. Where the pension fund was obliged to honour its sub-underwriting, it usually retained the stock or rights so acquired.

Although in the final analysis the decision turns on its own particular facts, it will nevertheless be of considerable significance to all pension funds who carry out underwriting activities.
The Special Commissioners also decided that had the underwriting commission been trading income chargeable under Case I of Schedule D, then income tax would have been payable at the rate applicable to trusts rather than the basic rate.

Reinstated by Court of Appeal. See Trustees of BT Pension Scheme & Others v. Clark

Reversed by the High Court on appeal. See Clark v. Trustees of British Telecom Pension Scheme

Michael Flesch QC and Felicity Cullen appeared for the pension fund trustees

Full transcript


Jaggers v. Ellis (Chancery Division) 11 November 1997

Income tax. Schedule D. Farming / woodlands.
The taxpayer grew Christmas trees. On a nine-acre site, coniferous trees were planted: mainly Norway Spruce, but also two other species not normally grown in woodlands. The trees were young and more closely spaced than they would have been if grown for forestry purposes. They were specially pruned to give a Christmas tree shape. The Special Commissioner found as a fact that the land was not "woodlands".

The taxpayer was assessed under Schedule D on the deemed trade under s.53(3) ICTA 1988. The taxpayer argued that the land she occupied was "woodlands" within the meaning of s.53(4) ICTA 1988, in which case she was exempted from the provisions of s.53(3).

Held: The Special Commissioner's finding of fact was not irrational. The word "woodlands" fell to be interpreted according to its normal English usage, and the Special Commissioner (who had viewed the site) could not be said to have been irrational in deciding that the site was not "woodlands", even though it was a site on which trees were grown.

Aparna Nathan appeared for the taxpayer

Full transcript


EMI Group Electronics Ltd v Coldicott (Chancery Division) 22 October 1997

Income tax. Schedule E. PILONs (Payments in Lieu of Notice).

Two employees had notice periods of six months. The contract of employment provided for PILONs to be made, saying "The Company reserves the right to make payment of the equivalent of salary in lieu of notice." The employees became redundant and were dismissed summarily; payments in lieu of notice were made in accordance with the employment contracts.

The issue was whether such payments were emoluments from the employment (s.19 ICTA 1988) in which case they were taxable, or not, in which case they were in principle taxable under s.148 ICTA 1988 but with the benefit of the £30,000 exemption under s.188(4) ICTA 1988.

Held: in the spectrum of types of payment, contractual PILONs fall between deferred payments of salary, which are within s.19, and redundancy payments, which are not. The fact, here, that the employment contracts provide for the payments to be made is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for taxability under s.19, but it is relevant. These PILONs were taxable under s.19 as emoluments from the employment. Mairs v Haughey [1994] 1 AC 303 distinguished.

Michael Flesch QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the employer

Full transcript

See also Court of Appeal decision above


Ingram v I.R.C. (Court of Appeal) 28 July 1997

Inheritance tax. "Carve-out" leases. Failed implementation.

Lady Ingram had conveyed property to a nominee, who then purported to grant her a lease of 20 year term. The freehold reversion was the subject of a gift to beneficiaries. Lady Ingram then died. Held (Nourse LJ, Evans LJ; Millett LJ dissenting): It was impossible for a person to grant a lease to themselves. The grant of a lease by a bare trustee, or nominee, was similarly impossible. The lease was a nullity. The gift was a gift of the freehold with vacant possession, but subject to an obligation in equity to give Lady Ingram rights and interests as if the lease had been valid. Those rights and interests constituted a reservation of benefit within the meaning of s.102 FA 1986 (Gifts with reservation).

Full transcript


IRC v. Willoughby [1997] STC 995 (H.L.)

Tax avoidance through the transfer of assets abroad. Sections 739 and 741 ICTA 1988.

(1) On the natural meaning of the words used in s.739 the section applies only to transfers of assets by individuals who are ordinarily resident in the U.K. at the time of the transfer.

(2) The difference between tax avoidance and tax mitigation: in tax mitigation, the taxpayer takes advantage of a fiscally attractive option afforded by the legislation and genuinely suffers the economic consequences that Parliament intended to be suffered by those taking advantage of the option; in tax avoidance, the favourable tax regime is enjoyed but the economic consequences are not incurred.

Here, there was investment in qualifying policies issued by non-resident life offices (Sch. 15 ICTA 1988 - formerly Sch.2 FA 1975): a special factor here was that the policy-holder could manage his own "portfolio" of investments. Although investment units were notionally allocated to him, he had no legal or equitable interest in the underlying investments, but simply a contractual right to the benefits promised by the policy - he was still suffering the economic consequences intended by Parliament. Thus there was no tax avoidance - he was within the s.741 exemption.

David Goy QC and Philip Baker appeared for the taxpayer

Full transcript

See also Article by David Goy Q.C. and Philip Baker


IRC v. McGuckian [1997] STC 908 (H.L.)

The Ramsay principle, as stated in Furniss v. Dawson [1984] STC 153, allows tax legislation to applied to the substance of a transaction. Steps inserted artificially with no commercial (business) purpose other than tax avoidance may be disregarded. Whilst the steps inserted into a scheme may have some business effect, the question is not what is the effect of inserting the artificial steps but what is their purpose.

Andrew Park QC appeared for the Inland Revenue

Full transcript

See also Article by David Goldberg Q.C.


Tesco plc v. Crimmin (Inspector of Taxes) [1997] STC 981 (Ch D)

Depreciatory transactions. Section 176 TCGA 1992 (formerly s.280 TA 1970).
The machinery of section 176 (reduction of allowable loss on a disposal of shares in a company if the company has previously disposed of assets at an undervalue to another group member) applies to reduce the allowable loss after indexation - so the taxpayer does not retain the benefit of the indexation allowance.

Andrew Park QC and Hugh McKay appeared for the taxpayer


Crawley Borough Council v. Bradford & Bingley Building Society - UNREPORTED

Rectification. Loan documentation: interest clause. Composite rate tax.

Both parties to a contract were mistaken as to the tax regime which applied. Section 476(5) ICTA 1988. Crawley Borough Council (the lender) was entitled to have the contract rectified so that the net amount of interest received would indeed be the rate of interest specified in the original contract.

David Goldberg QC and John Walters QC appeared for the taxpayer

Full transcript


McKnight v. Sheppard [1997] STC 846 (C.A.)

Mr Sheppard is a stockbroker. In the late 1980's he incurred legal costs of £200,000 odd and had to pay a Stock Exchange fine of £50,000. The costs were in respect of representation by Counsel and solicitors before a Stock Exchange disciplinary tribunal and an appeal. Mr Sheppard had been accused of various breaches of the Stock Exchange rules most of which were not proved (and a later tribunal "substantially" vindicated him).

The Special Commissioner found as a fact that Mr Sheppard had incurred the legal expenditure to save his stockbroking business from destruction. Accordingly, they were deductible under (what is now) s.74(1)(a) ICTA 1988. The fines were not deductible under s.74(1)(e) ICTA 1988 because of IRC v. Alexander von Glehn 12 TC 232.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Special Commissioner's conclusion on the legal fees (the fines were not in issue before the Court of Appeal). Section 74(1)(a) posed a single test. There was no further test of sufficient connection with the trade as Lightman J has suggested in this case. Since the Special Commissioner had made the above findings of fact, the only issue on appeal was whether that was a proper finding on Edwards v. Bairstow 36 TC 307 principles.

David Goldberg QC and Hugh McKay appeared for the taxpayer


R v. IRC, ex p. Ulster Bank Ltd [1997] STC 832 (C.A.)

Notices requiring a third party to produce documents, issued by the Inland Revenue during tax investigations. s.20(3) TMA 1970.

The draft notices issued by the Revenue in this case were permitted by s.20(8A) TMA since although the documents requested were conjectural and described only in general terms, nevertheless they were described in the notices within the meaning of s.20(8D) TMA; furthermore the requirement for the consent of the Special Commissioner under s.20(8A) provided a sufficient safeguard against the misuse of the Revenue's power in this regard.

R v. O'Kane and Clarke, ex p. Northern Bank Ltd disapproved in part

David Goldberg QC appeared for the taxpayer

Petition for leave to appeal to House of Lords refused


Bostock & others v. Totham (Inspector of Taxes) [1997] STC 764 (Ch D)

Enterprise zones, Industrial Buildings Allowance. Section 21(1) CAA 1990.

Where an enterprise zone building was purchased after first use, and the purchaser claimed industrial buildings allowance for the purchase price of the property, only the "building" element of the net purchase price paid, as opposed to the "land" element, qualified for allowances. The disallowable "land" element is to be found by a just apportionment of the price between the two elements; in this case, it was just to apportion pro rata to the value of the bare land and the construction cost of an equivalent new building as valued at the purchase date.

John Walters QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the taxpayer


Vodafone Cellular Ltd v. Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) [1997] STC 734 (C.A.)

Deductible expenses. Section 74 ICTA 1988. A one-off payment to terminate an onerous contract was deductible in computing profits for corporation tax purposes. The payment was held to be of a revenue nature and was wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the taxpayer's trade rather than the trades of its subsidiaries.

Michael Flesch QC and Felicity Cullen appeared for the taxpayer


Spectros International plc v. Madden (Inspector of Taxes) [1997] STC 114 (Ch D)

Capital gains tax. Disposal consideration. Purchaser of company agrees to discharge debt.
Spectros disposed of the common stock in its subsidiary SIH. The agreed purchase price was $20,001,000, but at the time of purchase SIH had a liability of $20 million to a bank; the money borrowed had previously been paid to Spectros by SIH in the form of a dividend. The purchaser agreed to discharge the liability to the bank, and in the event only paid $1,000 for the common stock. On the facts in this case, the effect of the sale agreement and related agreements was that the disposal price of the common stock was indeed $20,001,000.

David Goldberg QC and Hugh McKay appeared for the taxpayer


Walker (Inspector of Taxes) v. Centaur Clothes Group Ltd [1997] STC 72 (C.A.)

Corporation tax. Accounting periods. "Within the charge to tax" - s.832(1) ICTA 1988.

ACT paid on a dividend cannot be carried back and set against an earlier year's corporation tax unless the dividend was paid in an accounting period of the company (s.239(3) ICTA 1988). The taxpayer company ceased trading on 6 January 1992 and accordingly an accounting period then ended. No new accounting period started (s.12(2) ICTA 1988) unless the company continued to be "within the charge to corporation tax". The company had no source of income after 6 January 1992, with the result that after that date it was not within the charge to corporation tax and had no accounting period until 30 September 1993 when it placed £2000 in an interest-bearing deposit account.

David Goldberg QC and Conrad McDonnell appeared for the taxpayer

Upheld on appeal.


R v. O'Kane and Clarke, ex p. Northern Bank Ltd [1996] STC 1249 (QBD)

Notices requiring a third party to produce documents, issued by the Inland Revenue during tax investigations. s.20(3) TMA 1970.

The notices were quashed on the grounds (a) that they required the production of conjectural as distinct from actual documents and for that reason were outside the scope of s.20(3) TMA 1970; and (b) that they were oppressive and unfair in that they required production of material which would be largely or wholly ignored by the Revenue.
N.B. Ground (a) above disapproved by the Court of Appeal in R v. IRC, ex p. Ulster Bank Ltd [1997] STC 832; ground (b) left standing

David Goldberg QC and John Walters appeared for the taxpayer


Re Taxpayer F1(1993) Special Commissioners – unreported

Schedule E - s.145 ICTA 1988 - s.168 ICTA 1988.

Shadow director. Offshore company. Whether individual whose wishes directors tend to follow constitutes a shadow director: held: not. Whether living accommodation provided to shadow director is subject to charge under s.145 ICTA 1988: held: not.

Hugh McKay appeared for the taxpayer

Disapproved in R v Dimsey [1999] CA

Full transcript