Rockliff v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 162 (TC) (25 June 2009)

Rockliff v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 162 (TC) (25 June 2009)

There is an objective distinction between married persons without legal entitlement to pension and divorced persons with vested pension rights; tax relief for divorcees is justified by complex social and economic considerations; section 572 does not alter tax liability; no violation of ECHR established; tribunal lacks jurisdiction to declare incompatibility.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 162 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Trevor Rockliff; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax on Pensions, Independent Taxation of Spouses, Pension Sharing Orders, Discrimination Under ECHR
Tax Law Human Rights Law Family Law Income Tax on Pensions Independent Taxation of Spouses Pension Sharing Orders Discrimination Under ECHR

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Rockliff

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether taxation of police pension solely on husband contravenes ECHR by discriminating against married persons
  2. 2 Whether national legislation can be 'read down' to comply with Convention rights
  3. 3 Whether section 572 of Income Tax (Earnings & Pensions) Act 2003 alters tax liability

Ratio Decidendi

There is an objective distinction between married persons without legal entitlement to pension and divorced persons with vested pension rights; tax relief for divorcees is justified by complex social and economic considerations; section 572 does not alter tax liability; no violation of ECHR established; tribunal lacks jurisdiction to declare incompatibility.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed