Jocelyn Brownlow Patrick v Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Complaints that a tax information notice sought excessive material or allowed insufficient time are ordinarily matters for the fact-finding commissioners, provided the notice is reasonable. A challenge to service based on whether the notice was received is generally a question of fact rather than law. The statutory procedure requires an informal request and a reasonable opportunity to comply before a formal notice. Convention rights do not convert an obligation to provide information into a right to obtain extra time or facilities, and routine information requirements do not engage the prohibitions on inhuman treatment or forced labour.

The applicant appealed to Lloyd J against a £300 penalty imposed by the General Commissioners for St James, Westminster for failure fully to comply with a notice under section 20(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970. Lloyd J dismissed the appeal, holding that the commissioners had ample material to find non-compliance and to impose the penalty.

Mr Patrick sought permission for a further appeal. He challenged service of the notice, the reasonableness of the information sought and the time allowed, the preliminary informal-request procedure, and alleged breaches of Convention rights. The central issue was whether the proposed second appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or otherwise presented a compelling reason for it to be heard.

1. Application dismissed. Permission for a second appeal was refused under CPR 52.13. No important point of principle or practice, and no other compelling reason, arose.
2. The reasonableness of a section 20 notice, including the information sought and time allowed, was for the General Commissioners to assess. Their conclusion was properly open to them.
3. Whether the notice was received was a question of fact. Sending it to the correct address and its non-return provided material supporting a finding of service.
4. The statutory procedure was satisfied where an informal request had been made under section 20B(1), a reasonable opportunity to comply had been given, and commissioner consent preceded the formal notice.
5. Article 6(3)(b) concerns preparation of a defence. It did not provide extra time or facilities to comply with the underlying information obligation. Reliance on Articles 3 and 4.2 was wholly fanciful.
6. The proposed appeal was also disproportionate because its likely costs would vastly exceed the £300 penalty.

Order: Application dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal dismissed.
• Chancery Division: Lloyd J dismissed the appeal from the General Commissioners’ penalty determination.
• General Commissioners for St James, Westminster: A £300 penalty was imposed for failure fully to comply with a section 20 notice.