 |
[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 >> Kw Lee & Hong Kong Chop Suey v Inland Revenue [2004] UKSC SPC00453 (08 December 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSPC/2004/SPC00453.html Cite as: [2004] UKSC SPC00453, [2004] UKSC SPC453 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Return Self Assessment; Taxes Management Act 1970 Section 19A Notice; compromise; appeals settled and withdrawn
THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS
K W LEE & HONG KONG CHOP SUEY Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE Respondents
Special Commissioner: J GORDON REID Q.C., F.C.I.Arb
Sitting in Edinburgh on 22 November 2004
James Paterson, Paterson Reid Chartered Accountants, for the Appellant
John Cormack, HM Inspector of Taxes Regional Appeals Unit, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004
DECISION
The Special Commissioner, having heard parties' representatives, of consent:-
- allows the appeal at the instance of KW LEE to be withdrawn;
- allows the appeal at the instance of KW LEE and MRS CY LEE trading as HONG KONG CHIP SUEY to be withdrawn;
- finds no expenses due to or by either party.
NOTE
These appeals were heard together on 22nd November 2004. Mr James L Paterson C.A., F.T.I.I. appeared on behalf of the Appellants and Mr J. Cormack, Regional Appeals Unit, Huddersfield, appeared on behalf the Respondent (the "Revenue"). Various productions were lodged including agreed statements of facts, and the Revenue also produced written skeleton arguments.
At the outset, Mr Paterson indicated that he did not propose to proceed with Mr Lee's appeal. In relation to the other appeal, it became clear that the only issue between the parties was the requirement made under paragraph 6 of the Revenue's Notice under section 19A of the Taxes Management Act 1970, as amended (document C/26).
I then heard submissions in relation to that issue as to which the parties did not appear to be very far "apart". A short adjournment was then requested, which I granted. On resuming, Mr Paterson and Mr Cormack stated that they had reached a compromise and that they both wished the Hong Kong Chop Suey appeal to be withdrawn. I agreed to this proposal.
I am grateful to the parties' representatives for reaching what appears to be a sensible compromise. Should any further dispute arise, it may form the subject of a fresh appeal.
Finally, it was agreed that no question of expenses arose. I have, of consent, found no expenses due to or by either party.
J GORDON REID Q.C., F.C.I.Arb
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
SC 3110/2004