“Plans to strengthen the Code of Practice on tax governance, adopted by the 15 largest banks in 2010, have been published for consultation by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).”
OUT-LAW.com, 5th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Tens of thousands of workers who were denied the minimum wage have received hundreds of pounds in back pay from their employers following tougher enforcement policy by tax inspectors. Over the last year more than 26,000 workers were paid back £4m after action by HM Revenue and Customs, who are responsible for enforcing minimum wage laws.”
The Guardian, 30th May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The date when a claim for cross border group relief is made should form the basis of a decision about one of the tests for granting that relief under EU law and not the date of the end of the accounting period in which the claim was made, the Supreme Court has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 24th May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Supreme Court, 22nd May 2013
Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2013] UKSC 30; [2013] WLR (D) 191
“The inquiry as to whether a parent company established in the United Kingdom was entitled to cross-border group relief in respect of the losses of its non-resident subsidiaries was to be conducted on the basis of the circumstances existing as at the date of its claim, and not at the end of the accounting period in which those losses crystallised.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Tax avoidance has hit the news again, with Apple currently facing questions from the US Senate about its exploitation of Irish company law loopholes and David Cameron writing to offshore tax havens to push for more transparency over tax rules. As it happens, the High Court has just handed down a ruling in a case which raises many of the same issues.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Campaign group UK Uncut Legal Action has lost its high court challenge over the legality of the ‘sweetheart’ tax deal between HM Revenue and Customs and Goldman Sachs.”
The Guardian, 16th May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Judges are being asked to decide if HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) acted illegally by letting investment bank Goldman Sachs off part of its tax bill.”
BBC News, 2nd May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs: [2013] EWCA Civ 186; [2013] WLR (D) 105
“A taxpayer company which entered into a contract with owners or lawful occupiers of car parks or land to provide parking control services, and levied parking penalty charges on motorists for breach of the particular car park’s rules by issuing a charge notice against a motorist in breach, was entitled to claim that the charges amounted to damages for breach of contract made between the taxpayer and the motorist or damages for trespass; and the taxpayer was therefore not liable to pay VAT on those charges.”
WLR Daily, 13th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A HMRC official has been jailed for siphoning £12,000 from taxpayers’ accounts in a ‘flagrant breach of trust’.”
Daily Telegraph, 19th February 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Foulser v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2013] UKUT 038 (TCC); [2013] WLR (D) 51
“The First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with an allegation that a fair hearing of a tax appeal before it had been made impossible, but any contention that a party had acted unlawfully in public law had to be put forward by way of an application for judicial review in the High Court or the Upper Tribunal. In a case where the FTT considered that a debarring order was justified and no lesser order would meet the justice of the case but yet, the facts of the case did not come within Rules 7 and 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, the FTT could produce the desired just result by using its power under Rule 5 to ‘regulate its procedure’, particularly to deal with the case fairly and justly.”
WLR Daily, 25th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“UKBA v Tuncel and Basbaydar [2012] EWHC 402 (Admin) is a decision of the High Court that is potentially significant in the field of cash seizure and forfeiture proceedings under Pt 5 Ch 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 12th July 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“An anti tax-avoidance campaign group has won permission from the high courts to have a ‘sweetheart’ deal between HMRC and the banking giant Goldman Sachs judicially reviewed for its legality.”
The Guardian, 14th June 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The protection against costs provided to HM Revenue and Customs by section 144(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, in respect of proceedings brought against them on account of the seizure or detention of any thing on reasonable grounds, applied to claims for judicial review.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Taxpayers are entitled to rely on a concession made by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in a formal publication unless and until the concession is publicly withdrawn, according to the High Court.”
OUT-LAW.com, 11th May 2012
Source: www.out-law.ocm
“A group of activists is to raise a preliminary challenge to an alleged ‘sweetheart’ tax settlement between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and investment bank Goldman Sachs, according to a national newspaper.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th April 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be forced to defend itself in court against allegations that it gave one of the world’s most profitable banks a sweetheart deal on the repayment of unpaid taxes worth up to £20m.”
The Guardian, 18th April 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v First Nationwide [2012] EWCA Civ 278; [2012] WLR (D) 73
“The tax status of preference dividends from a Cayman Islands company to whose shares the taxpayer had subscribed, was determined by the machinery by which they were distributed. Under Cayman law share premium was distributable as dividend, whereas in English tax law share premium was treated in the same way as paid-up share capital. The transaction was not a sale and repurchase of securities such as to constitute a ‘buying back’ within the meaning of sections 737A and 730B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 13th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Newcastle United Football Club has settled a disputed tax bill with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) that is thought to relate largely to image rights payments to players, according to a newspaper report.”
OUT-LAW.com, 7th March 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024