Welcome

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Fulford Dobson [1...

ResourcesR v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Fulford Dobson [1...

Facts

  • Fulford Dobson and others challenged the Inland Revenue’s withdrawal of an extra-statutory concession related to capital gains tax computations on share disposals.
  • The concession previously allowed taxpayers to use the market value of shares at a specified date, which sometimes reduced their tax liability.
  • Upon withdrawal of the concession, the applicants faced higher tax liabilities, prompting them to seek judicial review.
  • The Inland Revenue had notified taxpayers of the withdrawal and the change in calculation methods.

Issues

  1. Whether the Inland Revenue’s withdrawal of the extra-statutory concession regarding capital gains tax calculations was lawful.
  2. Whether extra-statutory concessions can create legally enforceable legitimate expectations for taxpayers.
  3. Whether the Inland Revenue’s decision to withdraw the concession met requirements of rationality and procedural fairness.

Decision

  • The court held that the Inland Revenue has limited discretionary powers and cannot override or materially alter statutory tax law via extra-statutory concessions.
  • Withdrawal of the concession was found to be rational and not so unreasonable as to fail the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.
  • The court determined that the applicants’ alleged legitimate expectation did not arise, given the concession was expressly non-binding and subject to withdrawal.
  • The Inland Revenue acted fairly by providing notification of the withdrawal to affected taxpayers.
  • Extra-statutory concessions do not have the power to override or alter statutory provisions and are not legally enforceable.
  • Tax authorities must remain within statutory boundaries in granting and withdrawing concessions.
  • The Wednesbury unreasonableness standard is used to assess administrative decisions: a decision is unlawful only if no reasonable authority could have reached it.
  • Legitimate expectations may arise from clear, unambiguous assurances, but not where a concession is explicitly non-binding and withdrawable.
  • Procedural fairness is satisfied by adequate notice and transparency in administrative action.

Conclusion

The High Court confirmed that extra-statutory concessions granted by the Inland Revenue are non-binding and can be withdrawn, provided statutory tax law is not contravened and administrative fairness is observed, thus reaffirming the limits of administrative discretion in tax matters.

Assistant

How can I help you?
Expliquer en français
Explicar en español
Объяснить на русском
شرح بالعربية
用中文解释
हिंदी में समझाएं
Give me a quick summary
Break this down step by step
What are the key points?
Study companion mode
Homework helper mode
Loyal friend mode
Academic mentor mode
Expliquer en français
Explicar en español
Объяснить на русском
شرح بالعربية
用中文解释
हिंदी में समझाएं
Give me a quick summary
Break this down step by step
What are the key points?
Study companion mode
Homework helper mode
Loyal friend mode
Academic mentor mode

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.