Valleybright Ltd v Richardson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 1984 |
| Date | 29 November 1984 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division.
Mr. R. Sowler (instructed by Messrs. Egerton-Vernon) for the company.
Mr. R. Carnwath (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) for the Crown.
Before: Scott J.
Procedure - Preliminary point - Taxpayer failed to transmit case to High Court within 30 days - Whether High Court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from Commissioners - Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56Taxes Management Act 1970, sec. 56.
The taxpayer company sought to appeal from a decision of the General Commissioners. However, the Crown took a preliminary point that as the taxpayer had failed to comply with the requirements of theTaxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (4)Taxes Management Act 1970, sec. 56(4), the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. That section provided that the party requiring the Commissioners to state a case had to transmit it to the High Court within thirty days from the date of receipt.
The hearing before the Commissioners took place on 2 February 1982. On 10 February the company, by letter, indicated its dissatisfaction with the Commissioners' decision and required the Commissioners to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. The case was sent to the company on 18 June 1982. Dates were not given for when the company received the case, or when the case was transmitted to the High Court, but it was agreed that the latter date was not within thirty days of the former.
The issue was whether or not strict compliance by an appellant withTaxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (4)sec. 56(4) of the 1970 Act was an essential precondition for the High Court to hear the case. Both sides agreed that the jurisdiction of the High Court did not arise until the case had been transmitted by the appellant to the court.
Held, dismissing the company's appeal:
Strict compliance with Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (4)subsec. (4) was both mandatory and imperative as it was the event which gave the High Court jurisdiction to hear a case. This view was also supported by authority. Had the subsection been directory only it would have been open to an appellant to keep an appeal in abeyance indefinitely by refraining from transmitting the case stated to the High Court, and a respondent would be incapable of resolving the uncertainty engendered by such tactics. Accordingly, in the present case the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Per Curiam: It appeared that in some cases the Crown decided not to take the point that Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (4)sec. 56(4) had not been complied with. It was not satisfactory that the High Court then exercised a jurisdiction which it did not have to determine a liability to tax. The Crown's present policy of taking the point in some cases but not others was both concessionary and extra-statutory. Any discretion to extend the time limit should be provided for by statute and subject to the same judicial control as any other statutory discretion.
1. At an appeal meeting held on 2 February 1982 we the General Commissioners for the Division of St. George Hanover Square heard the appeal of Valleybright Ltd. against an assessment to corporation tax in the sum of £100 for the period ended 31 July 1979. The Liquidator did not appear and was not represented. The Respondent was represented by Mr. R. Walters of the Inland Revenue.
2. The documents submitted to us are annexed to this case and form part of it. Oral evidence was given by Mr. R. Quinlan, one of H.M. Inspectors of Taxes.
3. Our Clerk placed before us letters from the Liquidator dated 26 January 1982 and 1 February 1982 requesting an adjournment of the appeal to enable the Liquidator to consider the figures and computations set out in the Revenue's letter of 19 January 1982.
4. On behalf of the Inland Revenue it was stated that there had been considerable delay by the Liquidator in pursuing his appeal and the Inland Revenue's requests for further information and particulars remained unanswered. Mr. Walters placed before us copies of the correspondence regarding the company from 18 June 1981 and informed us that because of the delays it was only now that the Inland Revenue was able to present the necessary evidence to us.
5. We were informed that the appellant company was part of a group of companies at the relevant time and that five of the six UK companies were in liquidation and there had been delay in supplying information in all cases. The sixth UK company Rossminster Group Ltd., had been considered by us earlier and our attention was drawn to the Precept issued on 15 September 1981 expiring on 30 December 1981 had still not been complied with. Mr. Walters pointed out that the Liquidator had been informed by letter dated 19 January 1982 that the Inland Revenue intended to ask us to determine the appeal and submitted that it was reasonable to consider determination of the appeal. Our Clerk informed us that notice of the appeal meeting was posted on 12 January 1982.
6. We announced that we would hear the appeal but gave no reasons for it at that time but we give them now.
(i) It was apparent from the correspondence placed before us and the oral evidence given to us by Mr. Quinlan that there had been very considerable delay in the Liquidator's pursuit of the appeal.
(ii) The appeal was that of the appellant not of the Inland Revenue and whatever may have been the reasons for the continued failure of the Liquidator to supply information reasonably requested by the Inland Revenue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes)
...v General Commrs for Freshwell, ex parte Clarke TAX(1971) 47 TC 691 Valleybright Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) v Richardson (HMIT)TAXTAX(1984) 58 TC 290; [1985] BTC 31 These were appeals by the taxpayer against an order made by Harman J ([1992] BTC 620). By one order the judge granted an a......
- Re McGuckian (No 1)
-
Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes)
...the Crown. The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Valleybright Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) v Richardson (HMIT)TAXTAX(1984) 58 TC 290; [1985] BTC 31 Brassington v Guthrie (HMIT) TAX[1992] BTC 34 Income tax - Appeal to High Court from special commissioner - Case stated not t......
-
Brassington v Guthrie (Inspector of Taxes)
...the judgment: Fitzwilliam (Countess) & Ors v IR Commrs (No. 2) TAX[1991] BTC 8043 Valleybright Ltd (in liquidation) v Richardson (HMIT) [1985] BTC 31followed Income tax - Appeal to High Court against general commissioners' determination - Case stated not transmitted to High Court within 30 ......