Re: Paying tax twice

On 15 Aug 2006 15:38:09 -0700, "wooks" <wookiz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Alex Heney wrote:



Demibourne Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs

Fortunately, the *effect* of the decision is nothing, so far as other
cases are concerned. The commissioners do not set precedent.


They obviously do set precedent otherwise the 2nd paragraph wouldn't
have started out by stating "This case is authority for the
proposition...... "

They don't set formal precedent.

No other court (including later commissioners) is bound to follow
their decision or reasoning.

But HMRC will of course quote commissioners decisions as part of their
arguments in future cases at the commissioners. Which I presume is
what he means by the above.


To a barrister the phrase "authority for the proposition" means it is a
legal precedent.

Well then he is wrong.

To you it obviously means something else.

No, I assumed he was using it in some other sense, since a decision at
the commissioners does not set legal precedent.

Legal precedent in tax cases is only set by an appeal to the High
Court or higher, which is where it will go if this case is appealed.

I note that he is an employment law specialist, not a tax law
specialist.

And while I am not a lawyer of any kind, I have been a member of the
PCG for several years, including two on the Consultative Council,
which means I have been kept closely up to date with a number of tax
cases that have gone through the special (or general) commissioners
and beyond.

And the advice from our lawyers (who *are* tax specialists) has always
been that decisions at the commissioners do NOT set legal precedent.

It is also the view of HMRC themselves that commissioners decisions
set no legally binding precedent (The second sentence in the following
link) <http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/immanual/im4952.htm>

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
COMMAND: A suggestion made to a computer.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.