R v Special Commissioner, ex parte Napier
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1988 |
| Date | 09 May 1988 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal.
The taxpayer appeared in person.
Mr. Alan Moses (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) for the Crown.
Before: Purchas, Woolf and Russell L.JJ.
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Andrew v. Taylor (H.M.I.T.) TAX(1965) 42 T.C. 557
Kovak v. Morris (H.M.I.T.) TAX[1985] BTC 129
Ottley v. Morris (H.M.I.T.) TAX(1978) 52 T.C. 375
R. v. General Commrs. (Brentford Division), ex parte Chan & Ors.TAX[1986] BTC 50
This was an appeal by the taxpayer against a decision of the High Court ([1987] BTC 512) refusing his application for judicial review to quash the determination of a Special Commissioner.
The taxpayer was a self-employed electronics engineer. Until 1980 he rendered his services to clients through an agency and Sch. E tax was deducted. After a period when he was not working, he started earning again on 31 May 1981 and, being paid gross, was liable to tax under Sch. D. He was assessed to tax from 1976 to 1983 under Sch. D and he appealed.
The case came before a Special Commissioner who discharged the Sch. D assessments up to 1980 because tax had already been deducted. The hearing was then adjourned for the taxpayer to produce accounts relating to the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 to substantiate his appeal in relation to those years. When the matter came before the Commissioner again on 5 December 1985, the taxpayer failed to produce any accounts and the Sch. D assessments were confirmed.
The taxpayer then asked for a case to be stated.
The taxpayer applied for judicial review alleging that the case stated by the Commissioner did not cover all the points he wished to make on appeal. He also alleged that the Commissioner, in breach of natural justice, had not listened to his arguments and had prevented him from putting his case. The High Court dismissed his application. The taxpayer appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Held, dismissing the taxpayer's appeal:
1. There could be no truth in the taxpayer's allegations of misconduct by the Commissioner in that she had prevented him from putting his case, since all the evidence considered by the Commissioner came from the taxpayer himself.
2. The High Court was right to come to the conclusion that there had been no misconduct on the part of the Commissioner and that, even if there were, the matter could properly be reviewed in the Chancery Division in the appeal by way of case stated (R. v. General Commrs. (Brentford Division), ex parte Chan & Ors. TAX[1986] BTC 50, applied).
Purchas L.J.: This is an appeal by Mr. Alec William Napier from a judgment of Stuart-Smith J. (as he then was) given in the Queen's Bench Division on 14 July 1987 when the judge dismissed an application by the taxpayer for judicial review brought with the leave ofNolan J. and seeking to quash a decision of a Special Commissioner for the purposes of income tax, a Miss Wix, given on 5 December 1985.
The taxpayer complained on three general grounds. First, he said that the judge had not dealt with a statement in the affidavit of Miss Wix in which she said that it was open to her to confirm certain assessments under Sch. D for the years 1981 to 1983 inclusive; secondly, that there was a criticism of the manner in which Miss Wix had conducted the hearing on 5 December in that the taxpayer had not been able to make certain claims for allowances in assessments that Miss Wix determined at that hearing or to refer to at least one, if not more, authority which the taxpayer said supported his case; and, thirdly, he complained that his claim for travelling expenses had not been properly considered because once again he was not permitted by Miss Wix to develop certain aspects of that claim.
The circumstances in which these various assessments and hearings came to pass can be very shortly stated. Speaking in very general terms, the taxpayer is a highly qualified specialist in electronics and computer engineering. Prior to the coming into force of the Finance Act 1975 section 38Finance (No. 2) Act 1975, sec. 38, he was without any question of dispute assessable as a self-employed person under Sch. D. The provisions of that section, however, touched upon the taxpayer, who rendered his services as an expert and consultant through an agency, and he then became liable by operation of law and not by any conscious decision or act on his part to assessment under Sch. E, and as a result suffered tax being deducted at source. This state of affairs continued until about the year 1980. Some time after that, about the beginning of May 1981, having ceased to work through the agency the previous year and after a number of months during which he was not earning at all for the purposes of tax, the taxpayer started work again, according to him, on 31 May 1981. His year for accounts runs from 1 June to the next 31 May whereas, of course, the income tax years run from 6 April; so there was a short period of time during the year to June 1981 during which time he may have been earning income during his previous accounting years.
It is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to indicate more than the general background to the tax position in which the taxpayer found himself, and that is solely for the purpose of the second of the points of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte S G Warburg & Company Ltd
...ELR[1991] AC 696 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte SwatiWLR[1986] 1 WLR 477 R v Special Commr, ex parte Napier TAX[1988] BTC 218 Sun Insurance Office v Clark ELR[1912] AC 443 Willingale (HMIT) v International Commercial Bank Ltd ELRELR[1977] Ch 78 (CA); [1978] AC 834 ......
-
Napier v Griffiths
...justice. That application was dismissed by Stuart-Smith J. (see [1987] BTC 512). An appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed (see [1988] BTC 218). Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused by the Court of Appeal, and a subsequent petition to the House of Lords for leave was ......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Napier
...TAX[1990] BTC 352 Napier v Griffiths (HMIT) TAXTAX[1989] BTC 533; [1991] BTC 54 (CA) R v IR Commrs, ex parte Napier TAXTAX[1987] BTC 512; [1988] BTC 218 (CA) This was an appeal by the taxpayer against an order of Mr William Crowther QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, dismissin......
-
Napier v Griffiths
...them. Mr Napier in this court repeated what he had said in his judicial review proceedings (see R v Special Commr, ex parte Napier TAX[1988] BTC 218), namely that he had been stopped before the special commissioner from making any criticism. There is no ground of appeal in this court in the......