House of Lords
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830206600205 |
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House
of
Lords
Cheating the Public Revenue
Rv
Dimsey;
RvAllen [2001] 3 WLR 843
Rv
Dimsey
The appellant was resident in Jersey
where
he established his
own
company to provide his clients
who
resided in England
with
the
forma-
tion of offshore companies which he
then
administered for
them.
He set
up two such companies to serve a client
named
Chipping
who
resided
in England,
the
purpose being to act as intermediary in
the
supply of
avionic
equipment
to a company in
South
Africa
under
the
law of which
country such supply as was contemplated by Dimsey
and
Chipping was
illegal. A third offshore company was
then
set up to act as transferee of
the profits of the
other
two companies (which
turned
out
to be over
£644,000
and
£582,000)
and
acredit card was obtained, in
the
name
of
the company, of which Chipping
had
the personal use, as director.
Dimsey was charged with conspiracy
with
Chipping
and
another
to
cheat the public revenue by concealing
the
fact
that
it was Chipping
who
had
negotiated the initial contract with the South African company
and
who, in England, administered
and
controlled
the
business of
the
com-
panies. Dimsey claimed
that
it was he who, in Jersey, managed
and
controlled the business of
the
companies
and
that
Chipping was only a
consultant whose advice he was
not
bound
to accept. He also claimed
that
any
false information which
may
have appeared in the
document
provided to
the
English Commissioners of Customs
and
Excise was for
the purpose of concealing from
the
South African
government
the
true
nature
of
the
material being exported to South Africa,
and
was
not
for
the purpose of deceiving
and
misleading the English Commissioners. He
was, however, convicted as charged. He appealed to
the
Court of Appeal
and
eventually to
the
House of Lords, against his conviction.
RvAllen
The appellant was charged with cheating the public revenue of income
tax
and
corporation tax. The prosecution alleged
that
he
had
managed
and
controlled in England
the
business of propety companies registered
in Jersey, but, once again,
the
defence asserted
that
it was Dimsey in
Jersey
who
managed
and
controlled
the
business of the companies. The
prosecution alleged
that
Allen
had
failed to disclose to the revenue
authorities in England the profits which he
had
received in England
from the companies, which, for tax purposes, were resident in England,
and
that
he
had
failed to
reveal
the
fact that, as
they
were administered
and
controlled in England,
they
were liable to the
payment
of corpora-
tion tax (as they were resident in
the
UK). He, too, was convicted
and
his
appeal also reached the House of Lords.
Section 739 of
the
Income
and
Corporation Taxes Act 1988 provides
that
the section is for the purpose of dealing with
the
avoidance by
144
To continue reading
Request your trial