Tinkler v Revenue & Customs

Tinkler v Revenue & Customs

BDO had neither actual nor apparent authority to receive a s.9A notice on behalf of Mr Tinkler, and the copy notice sent to BDO was not effective as a s.9A notice. No valid s.9A notice was given to Mr Tinkler. Mr Tinkler is not estopped by convention from denying that HMRC had opened a valid enquiry, as the necessary elements of estoppel by convention, including assumption of responsibility and unconscionability, were not established.

Parties
Appellant: William Andrew Tinkler; Respondents: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice of Enquiry, Agency Law, Estoppel by Convention, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law Administrative Law Notice of Enquiry Agency Law Estoppel by Convention 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Andrew Tinkler

Appellant

Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC gave a valid notice of enquiry under s.9A TMA 1970 to Mr Tinkler by sending a copy to his accountants BDO
  2. 2 Whether BDO had actual or apparent authority to receive a notice of enquiry on Mr Tinkler’s behalf
  3. 3 Whether Mr Tinkler is estopped by convention from denying that HMRC had opened a valid enquiry

Ratio Decidendi

BDO had neither actual nor apparent authority to receive a s.9A notice on behalf of Mr Tinkler, and the copy notice sent to BDO was not effective as a s.9A notice. No valid s.9A notice was given to Mr Tinkler. Mr Tinkler is not estopped by convention from denying that HMRC had opened a valid enquiry, as the necessary elements of estoppel by convention, including assumption of responsibility and unconscionability, were not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the decision of the Upper Tribunal is overturned to the extent appealed.
  • HMRC's cross-appeal on estoppel by convention is dismissed.