HC Deb 15 July 1992 vol 211 cc692-4W
Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines exist on the circumstances in which a Minister should be informed when arguments advanced in a lower court are reversed at a subsequent stage; and if he will publish those guidelines.

Mr. Dorrell

I am not aware of any such guidelines.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what occasions the agreement referred to by the Minister in column 213 of theOfficial Report of Standing Committe B, 6 June 1991, has been upheld by the courts.

Mr. Dorrell

The passage to which my hon. Friend refers mentions two instances of agreement between taxpayers and the Inland Revenue. Neither has had to be considered by the courts.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Padmorev. CIR referred to by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 6 June 1991, Standing Committee B, columns 205 and 213, was a judicial review case; and whether the Padmore case applied to taxpayers who were not in partnership with the taxpayer bringing the case.

Mr. Dorrell

Padmorev. CIR was not a judicial review case. The taxpayers who benefited from the judgment in that case included at least one who was not in partnership with Mr. Padmore.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in what circumstances it is the policy of the Inland Revenue to propose to a taxpayer that public law proceedings brought by another taxpayer shall be treated as a test case for that taxpayer also; and when that policy first started;

(2) what rights he intends to confer upon taxpayers by providing that an agreement with a taxpayer that public law proceedings brought by another taxpayer shall be treated as a test case for that taxpayer;

(3) if he will list the occasions on which the Inland Revenue agreed on a judicial review with a taxpayer that public law proceedings brought by another taxpayer shall be treated as a test case for that taxpayer also;

(4) on how many occasions has the Inland Revenue agreed with a taxpayer that public proceedings brought by another taxpayer shall he treated as a test case for that taxpayer also;

(5) in what circumstances it is the policy of the Inland Revenue to accept a proposal from the taxpayer that public law proceedings brought by another taxpayer shall be treated as a test case for that taxpayer also; and. when that policy first started;

(6) if he will list the precedents in cases of judicial review for the Minister's statement in column 213 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B, 6 June 1991, that, other people could have joined in that agreement.

Mr. Dorrell

If the matters in issue in public law proceedings are relevant to the tax affairs of another taxpayer not party to the proceedings, such a taxpayer can rely on the result of those proceedings without reference to the Inland Revenue.

The then Economic Secretary explained in Standing Committee B last year that the established principles would apply if retrospective legislation were in contemplation following those proceedings. If a taxpayer not party to the proceedings has expressly agreed with the Inland Revenue that the final resolution of some aspect of his or her tax affairs should await the outcome of public law proceedings, and follow the result, Ministers would feel bound to exclude that taxpayer from the scope of any subsequent retrospective legislation in the same way as the successful litigant. I am aware of no instance when this issue has arisen in practice in relation to public law proceedings.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances the Inland Revenue is excluded from the application of common law.

Mr. Dorrell

The Commissioners of the Inland Revenue are required to act in accordance with the powers conferred upon them by statute and in accordance with common law.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a taxpayer may apply for judicial review where the Exchequer has refused to repay tax unlawfully raised;

(2) what steps he has taken to ensure that a taxpayer can apply for judicial review where the Exchequer has refused to repay tax unlawfully raised.

Mr. Dorrell

The decision to apply for judicial review in a particular instance is a matter for the taxpayer concerned.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his policy on the repayment of tax unlawfully raised;

(2) by what authority the Exchequer is not required to repay tax unlawfully raised.

Mr. Dorrell

I assume that my hon. Friend's reference to "tax unlawfully raised" is a reference to tax paid pursuant to regulations subsequently found to be ultra vires. The question of the recovery of ultra vires charges levied by public bodies is currently in issue in the case of Woolwichv. CIR in which the judgment of the House of Lords is expected shortly.