Joint (Inspector of Taxes) v Bracken Developments Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1994 |
| Date | 17 January 1994 |
Chancery Division
Before Mr Justice Vinelott
Joint (Inspector of Taxes)
and
Bracken Developments Ltd
Corporation tax - close company - duty to report liability
Duty on close company to report liability
A statutory obligation was imposed on a close company to notify the Revenue of its liability to tax in connection with loans made by it to participators. Neglect to do so resulted in interest being charged on an assessment made to make good the loss of tax attributable to that neglect.
Mr Justice Vinelott so held in the Chancery Division when allowing an appeal by the Crown from a determination by New Forest West general commissioners that had reduced to nil two assessments to tax carrying interest under section 88 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 made on the taxpayer company, Bracken Developments Ltd, for accounting periods to October...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
3 cases
- Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes)
-
Earlspring Properties Ltd v George Guest Esq.(HM Inspector of Taxes)
...of TMA 1970 to the tax chargeable under section 286. 18 A similar argument was advanced by the taxpayer in the case of Joint v. Bracken Developments [1994] S.T.C. 300 and was rejected by Vinelott, J. in that case also. 19 2. The scope of section 10. 20 Section 10 (as modified) requires ever......
-
Bricom Holdings Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...against this sui generis tax are those found in Schedule 26. In this respect we follow the approach of by Vinelott J in Joint v Bracken Developments [1994] BTC 107 (with particular reference to pages 118-119), a case concerned with section 419(1) which assesses amounts on loans by close com......
