[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Special Commissioners of Income Tax Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Special Commissioners of Income Tax Decisions >> Murphy v (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2004] UKSC SPC00434 (20 September 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSPC/2004/SPC00434.html Cite as: [2004] UKSC SPC434, [2004] UKSC SPC00434

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

SPC00434

NOTICE under s.19 TMA 1970 – whether information reasonably required – yes – notice confirmed

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS

S. MURPHY Appellant

- and -

M GOWERS

(HM INSPECTOR OF TAXES) Respondent

Special Commissioner: DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE

Sitting in public in London on 16 September 2004

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Brendan Hone, Inland Revenue Appeals Unit Scotland for the Respondent

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION

1. Mr S Murphy appeals against a notice under section 19A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 dated 7 August 2003 requiring production of certain particulars and documents. The taxpayer did not appear and was not represented; the Inspector was represented by Mr Brendon Hone.
2. The taxpayer had previously applied in May for a postponement of the hearing on the grounds that he was then just leaving the UK to do a diving job in Australia for nine months. The Tribunal refused the postponement. The taxpayer repeated his request in an undated letter to the Tribunal received in August, which was again refused. The information required relates to the return for the year ended 5 April 2002 and appeals against such notices must necessarily be dealt with quickly. The fact that the taxpayer is working abroad is not a sufficient reason. The Tribunal could have been sent his written reasons for appealing, he could have sent a representative, or he could have conducted the appeal himself by video link (as indeed Mr Hone could have from Scotland).
3. The Inspector gave notice on 6 June 2003 that he intended to enquire into the taxpayer's return for the year ended 5 April 2002 and asked for four items of information, three of which have since been withdrawn as the Inspector has been able to obtain the information from a third party. Not having received any reply the Inspector issued a section 19A Notice on 7 August 2003. The remaining requirement in the section 19A Notice is:

"Your record of the gross UK diving income of £70,085 in the year from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 including all payslips for that year."

4. The taxpayer did not provide this but appealed against the Notice. His grounds of appeal are that the information requested has already been provided by his employer to the Inland Revenue. The Inspector wrote on 31 October 2003 explaining:

"Your tax return shows gross UK diving income of £70,085 in the year from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. I attach a copy of extracts from your employer's returns which shows that you were paid £92,563.80 in this period by Coflexip and DSND (the figures highlighted in yellow of the attached schedule [not reproduced]). You will agree therefore that it is both reasonable and relevant to seek your record of the gross diving income of £70,085 so that I can see why there is such a large discrepancy. Your explanation for this would be welcome."

5. Section 19A(9) provides:

"On an appeal under subsection (6) above section 50(6) to (8) shall not apply but the Commissioners may—

(a) if it appears to them that the production of the document or the furnishing of the accounts or particulars was reasonably required by the officer of the Board for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) or (2A) above, confirm the notice under that subsection so far as relating to the requirement; or

(b) if it does not so appeal to them, set aside that notice so far as so relating."

6. The Inspector's reasons set out in paragraph 4 above show, in my view, good reason why the particulars and documents were required. There is a large discrepancy between what the taxpayer has returned and what his employers have returned. The taxpayer's grounds of appeal, that the information has been supplied by the employer, does not answer the question at all. The figure given by the employers may be wrong, or the figure given by the taxpayer may be wrong. The Inspector is entitled to know which is wrong and why. The information was clearly reasonably required.
7. Accordingly I confirm the notice and dismiss the appeal.

J F AVERY JONES

SPECIAL COMMISSIONER

Release Date: 20 September 2004

SC 3040/04