BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice) [2010] UKICO FS50209658 (28 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2010/FS50209658.html Cite as: [2010] UKICO FS50209658 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant requested information that would explain the reasoning of the government for abolishing the professional trustee residence rule formerly provided by section 69(2) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The public authority divided the request into two parts. In response to the first part of the request, the public authority stated that it held no relevant information. In response to the second part of the request, the public authority confirmed that it held relevant information, but refused to disclose this, citing the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy). The Commissioner finds that the public authority stated incorrectly that it held no information falling within the first part of the request, but that the information that it holds that falls within the scope of this part of the request is exempt by virtue of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and that the public interest in the maintenance of this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In relation to the second part of the request, the Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) is engaged and that the public interest in the maintenance of the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner further finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a) and 17(1) in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
