Haskell v Comptroller of Taxes [2017] JRC 088 (14 June 2017)

Haskell v Comptroller of Taxes [2017] JRC 088 (14 June 2017)

The first respondent must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the request for information falls within the terms of the TIEA, but is not required to disclose the letter of request or conduct a full audit of the requesting state's procedures. The presumption of regularity applies unless the applicant raises a specific issue. The duty of candour requires more than a bare assertion of satisfaction; the respondent must provide a rational account of its decision, especially when the applicant disputes key facts such as tax residence or connections to entities. The application for a stay is premature and refused. The applicant is not entitled to disclosure of the letter of...

Citation
[2017] JRC 088
Parties
Applicant: Preston Hampton Haskell; First Respondent: Competent Authority for Jersey (formerly Comptroller of Taxes); Second Respondent: Second Respondent (claims withdrawn)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Directions (summons for Directions)
Outcome
Application for stay refused; directions given for further disclosure by first respondent.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Exchange of Tax Information, Duty of Candour, Disclosure, Presumption of Regularity, Tax Information Exchange Agreements (tiea)
Administrative Law Tax Law International Law Judicial Review Exchange of Tax Information Duty of Candour Disclosure Presumption of Regularity +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Preston Hampton Haskell

Applicant

Competent Authority for Jersey (formerly Comptroller of Taxes)

First Respondent

Second Respondent (claims withdrawn)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Directions (summons for Directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent complied with the duty of candour in responding to the judicial review application
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to disclosure of the letter of request from the Swedish Tax Authority
  3. 3 Whether the notices issued under the Taxation (Exchange of Information with Third Countries)(Jersey) Regulations 2008 were validly issued

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the request for information falls within the terms of the TIEA, but is not required to disclose the letter of request or conduct a full audit of the requesting state's procedures. The presumption of regularity applies unless the applicant raises a specific issue. The duty of candour requires more than a bare assertion of satisfaction; the respondent must provide a rational account of its decision, especially when the applicant disputes key facts such as tax residence or connections to entities. The application for a stay is premature and refused. The applicant is not entitled to disclosure of the letter of...

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused; directions given for further disclosure by first respondent.

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings is rejected as premature.
  • First respondent is ordered to provide further information and documentation regarding the applicant's tax residence and connections to the relevant entities.