De Silva & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2016] EWCA Civ 40 (02 February 2016)

De Silva & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2016] EWCA Civ 40 (02 February 2016)

The Court held that HMRC lawfully challenged the appellants' loss relief claims by opening enquiries into the partnership returns for the years in which the losses arose, which included deemed enquiries into the individual partners' returns. The claims were not 'stand-alone' claims requiring challenge under Schedule 1A TMA. The Supreme Court's decision in Cotter did not require a different approach. The partnership settlement agreement, implemented via sections 50 and 54 TMA, determined the allowable losses and precluded higher claims.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 40
Parties
Appellants: Mr De Silva and Mr Dokelman; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (tax) / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judicial review claim refused.
Legal Topics
Self Assessment Tax Returns, Carry Back Loss Relief, Judicial Review, Partnership Taxation, Finality of Assessments, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law Administrative Law Self Assessment Tax Returns Carry Back Loss Relief Judicial Review Partnership Taxation Finality of Assessments Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr De Silva and Mr Dokelman

Appellants

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (tax) / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC was required to challenge the appellants' carry-back loss relief claims as 'stand-alone' claims under Schedule 1A TMA or could lawfully challenge them via enquiry into partnership returns for the later year under section 12AC TMA.
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Cotter [2013] UKSC 69 required a different procedural approach.
  3. 3 Whether the partnership settlement agreement under section 54 TMA bound the individual partners and precluded further claims for higher loss relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that HMRC lawfully challenged the appellants' loss relief claims by opening enquiries into the partnership returns for the years in which the losses arose, which included deemed enquiries into the individual partners' returns. The claims were not 'stand-alone' claims requiring challenge under Schedule 1A TMA. The Supreme Court's decision in Cotter did not require a different approach. The partnership settlement agreement, implemented via sections 50 and 54 TMA, determined the allowable losses and precluded higher claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judicial review claim refused.

Orders

  • The appellants' claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • No relief is granted to the appellants.