R v O'Kane and Another, ex parte Northern Bank Ltd ; R v McKnight and Others, ex parte Northern Bank Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 August 1996 |
| Date | 21 August 1996 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Ferris
Inland Revenue - investigation - conjectural documents cannot be demanded
A person required to produce documents pertaining to Inland Revenue investigations by a notice under section 20(3) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 fell into the established category of a "mere witness" and a notice made in respect of him should not demand the production of conjectural rather than actual documents.
Mr Justice Ferris, sitting as an additional judge of the Queen's Bench Division, so held in granting the applications of the Northern Bank Ltd for certiorari to quash 13 notices served against it in relation to the affairs of some of its clients under section 20(3) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 by Mr M J O'Kane, Mr David McKnight, Mr J G Smith and Mr M A Clarke.
Section 20 of the 1970 Act, as substituted for the original section by section 57(1) and Schedule 6 of the Finance Act 1976 and amended by sections 142(1) to (8), (10) and 187(1) and Schedule 17 of the Finance Act 1989, provides:
"(3)…an inspector may, for the purpose of inquiring into the tax liability of any person…by notice in writing require any other person to deliver to the inspector or, if the person to whom the notice is given so elects, to make available for inspection by a named officer of the board, such documents as are in his possession or power and as (in the inspector's reasonable opinion) contain, or may contain information relevant to any tax liability to which the tax payer is or may be, or may have been, subject, or to the amount of any such liability."
The bank had received 13 section 20(3) notices in similar terms relating to the affairs of a number of different clients. The documents required for production were listed in a schedule to each notice. Inter alia the schedules referred to:
"2 Record of any deeds…held…
"9 Any documentation, notes etc indicating the existence of any other accounts operated by (named taxpayer)".
Mr David Goldberg, QC and Mr John Walters for the applicant; Ms Genevra Caws, QC and Mr Rabinder Singh for the respondents.
MR JUSTICE FERRIS said that the thrust of the applicant's argument was that the schedule identified not specific documents but classes of documents, documents whose existence was conjectural or categories of documents in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Ulster Bank Ltd
......R v HM Inspector of Taxes, ex parte Northern Bank Ltd TAX[1996] BTC 519. Judicial review - ... its own right or on behalf of one or more others. I also accept Mr Brennan's submission that the ......
-
R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Ulster Bank Ltd
...would depend on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of Mr Justice Ferris in R v O'Kane, Ex parte Northern Bank LtdTLRUNK(The Times October 3, 1996; [1996] STC 1249). In that case, the judge had concluded that section 20(3) did not authorise a notice which required the production of......
-
R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Ulster Bank Ltd
...were approved and served. 17 Prompted, no doubt, by that evidence and the decision of Ferris J in R v O'Kane, ex parte Northern Bank Ltd [1996] STC 1249, on 7th January 1997 the Revenue wrote to the Bank "so as to clarify" the request set out in the letter of 24th August 1995. It stated tha......
-
An Applicant v HM Inspector of Taxes
...I read Ferris J's observations on Mr Shirley's decision (found in the judgment of Ferris J in R v O'Kane & Clarke, ex p. Northern Bank [1996] STC 1249 at 1265) as endorsing Mr Shirley's reasoning without any relevant qualification. 8. I do not think that the human rights arguments alter thi......