Macklin v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 554 (TC) (10 October 2013)

Macklin v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 554 (TC) (10 October 2013)

The SRP was not 'established in the USA' for DTA purposes because it was not established under or in conformity with US tax legislation relating to pension schemes; its exemption from US tax arose from the World Bank's immunities, not from US pension law. Therefore, Mr Macklin was not entitled to exemption under Article 17(1)(b) of the DTA. The discovery assessment for 2003/04 was competent as the statutory conditions were satisfied.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 554
Parties
Appellant: Michael Macklin; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Double Taxation Agreement, Pension Taxation, Discovery Assessment, Interpretation of Treaties
Tax Law International Taxation Double Taxation Agreement Pension Taxation Discovery Assessment Interpretation of Treaties

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Macklin

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the World Bank Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) is a 'pension scheme established in the USA' for the purposes of Article 17(1)(b) of the UK-USA Double Taxation Agreement (DTA)
  2. 2 Whether HMRC was entitled to raise a discovery assessment under section 29 Taxes Management Act 1970 for the 2003/04 tax year

Ratio Decidendi

The SRP was not 'established in the USA' for DTA purposes because it was not established under or in conformity with US tax legislation relating to pension schemes; its exemption from US tax arose from the World Bank's immunities, not from US pension law. Therefore, Mr Macklin was not entitled to exemption under Article 17(1)(b) of the DTA. The discovery assessment for 2003/04 was competent as the statutory conditions were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Macklin is not entitled to exemption from UK income tax under Article 17(1)(b) of the UK-USA DTA for his World Bank pension income.
  • The discovery assessment for 2003/04 is upheld as competent.