Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Tooth
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 38 (TCC) |
| Date | 07 February 2018 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
3 cases
-
Gordon and Others
...– Registered Pension Schemes (Accounting and Assessment) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3454 – Clark [2017] TC 05856 – R & C Commrs v Tooth [2018] BTC 505 – Honig v Sarsfield (HMIT) [1986] BTC 205 – TMA 1970, s. 36 – Anderson [2016] TC 05092 – Cooke [2018] TC 06239 – TFEU, art. 63 – Clark [2016]......
-
Hargreaves
...having found that as it was bound by the Upper Tribunal (UT) decisions of Pattullo v R & C Commrs [2016] BTC 510, R & C Commrs v Tooth [2018] BTC 505 and Beagles v R & C Commrs [2018] BTC 528 it had to apply the concept of a discovery assessment becoming stale. The delay between the discove......
-
Arunvill Global Equity Trading Ltd
...considerations [25] There was some dispute between the parties over the impact of the Upper Tribunal decision in R & C Commrs v Tooth [2018] BTC 505. In that case, the Upper Tribunal decided that the discovery assessment was invalid as HMRC had failed to prove that the taxpayer's (alleged) ......