Martin v O'Sullivan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 1984 |
| Date | 05 March 1984 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal.
The taxpayer appeared in person.
Mr. M. Hart (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) for the Crown.
Before: Stephenson, Dillon L.JJ. and Sir Roger Ormrod.
Class 4 National Insurance contributions - Appeal against assessment - Claim that Social Security Bill 1975 invalidly voted upon and did not become an Act - Claim of double assessment to pay National Insurance contributions - Taxes Management Act 1970 section 32Taxes Management Act 1970, sec. 32.
This was an appeal by the taxpayer against a decision of Nourse J. (reported at 82 BTC 201) upholding an assessment to Class 4 National Insurance contributions.
The taxpayer did not dispute that the correct amount of his Class 4 contributions for the year in question was £264. Nor did he dispute that he was prima facie liable to pay Class 2 contributions of £125.32 for that year. The taxpayer argued, as he had done in the Chancery Division, that the assessment was invalid on two grounds. First, he argued that prior to the Second Reading of the Bill which became the Social Security Act 1975, Members of Parliament changed their status for tax and National Insurance purposes from self-employed to that of employees. In his submission they must then have been employees of the Crown and, as such, ineligible to sit in Parliament as representatives of the people. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Bill never became a valid Act.
Secondly, the taxpayer claimed that he had in effect been assessed more than once for National Insurance contributions and was entitled to make a claim under Taxes Management Act 1970 section 32sec. 32 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 in respect of that double assessment. In relation to this claim he calculated an amount which he had in effect already paid indirectly to the employers' Class 1 secondary contributions fund by the purchase of goods and services through the year. His calculation was based on the estimated amount by which the price of such goods and services was increased to take account of employers' Class 1 contributions.
The Crown was not called upon to put forward argument.
Held, dismissing the taxpayer's appeal:
1. With regard to the taxpayer's first argument, the courts cannot look into the qualifications of Members of Parliament. They simply have to be satisfied that the Act has been passed and if the statute has been passed it is the business of the courts to see that it is complied with, and not go behind it. The House of Lords has ruled, once and for all, that any such argument as the one put forward by the taxpayer in this matter must fail.
2. In respect of the taxpayer's second argument their Lordships adopted the reasoning and judgment of Nourse J., namely that the taxpayer had not been assessed to National Insurance contributions more than once for the same cause and for the same chargeable period withinTaxes Management Act 1970 section 32 subsec-or-para (1)sec. 32(1) of the 1970 Act. There had only ever been two assessments, namely those for Class 2 and Class 4 contributions....
To continue reading
Request your trial