McKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD HOFFMANN,LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN,LORD CLYDE,LORD HUTTON,LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH
Judgment Date17 June 1999
Judgment citation (vLex)[1999] UKHL J0617-2
Date17 June 1999
CourtHouse of Lords
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
35 cases
  • HM Revenue and Customs v Lansdowne Partners Ltd Partnership
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 18 October 2010
    ...distinction between the “object” of expenditure and the “effect” of expenditure was taken up by the House of Lords in McKnight v Sheppard [1999] STC 669. The case concerned the legal costs incurred by the taxpayer in defending disciplinary proceedings that had been brought against him. The ......
  • TC03026: Versteegh Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
    • 6 November 2013
    ...and the expenditure lies outside the prohibition in s 130. [151]The same theme can be found in the case of McKnight (HMIT) v SheppardTAX[1999] BTC 236, where the fact that the taxpayer was found to be concerned as to his personal reputation when he incurred expenses in defending certain dis......
  • Holmes & Ross v HM Revenue and Customs
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 12 January 2010
    ...My instinctive reaction was the same, but in the light of the principles expounded by the House of Lords in McKnight v Sheppard [1999] 1 WLR 1333 I see no reason to doubt that legal and other professional expenses incurred by Mr Ross and Mr Holmes as a result of the intervention are properl......
  • Seven Individuals v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)
    • 31 March 2017
    ...does seem to have a certain logic to it. Mr Davey referred in passing to the decision of the House of Lords in McKnight (HMIT) v Sheppard [1999] BTC 236 as illustrating that work done on tax returns is not for the purposes of a trade. In fact in the course of his speech Lord Hoffmann referr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Weekly Tax Update - Monday 15 October 2012
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 16 October 2012
    ...this. No part of their trade could encompass what their employees or agents had done in view of the WMSC findings. In McKnight v Sheppard 71 TC 419 (1999) [which concerned non-statutory fines imposed on a stockbroker by the Stock Exchange] the fine was held to be non-deductible by both the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT