Wickersham v Revenue And Customs

Wickersham v Revenue And Customs

The claim was dismissed because the claim for loss relief was premature; the underlying loss was still subject to an open s9A enquiry for the later year, rendering the claim inchoate and not final. The court found that valid notice of intention to enquire under Schedule 1A had been given by HMRC within the statutory deadline. The other defences (lack of quantification and paragraph 4(4) defence) were not established, but the prematurity defence was dispositive.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Mark Wickersham; Defendant: Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Capital Loss Relief, Tax Credits, Procedural Requirements for Tax Claims
Tax Law Income Tax Capital Loss Relief Tax Credits Procedural Requirements for Tax Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Mark Wickersham

Claimant

Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claim for loss relief was sufficiently quantified under the relevant legislation
  2. 2 Whether HMRC gave valid notice of intention to open an enquiry under Schedule 1A TMA 1970
  3. 3 Whether the claim for relief was premature due to an ongoing s9A enquiry into the year of loss

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the claim for loss relief was premature; the underlying loss was still subject to an open s9A enquiry for the later year, rendering the claim inchoate and not final. The court found that valid notice of intention to enquire under Schedule 1A had been given by HMRC within the statutory deadline. The other defences (lack of quantification and paragraph 4(4) defence) were not established, but the prematurity defence was dispositive.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed