Able (UK) Holdings Ltd v HM Inspector of Taxes

On an appeal by case stated, remission is exceptional. A case should be remitted only where proposed additional findings are material to a tenable argument, reasonably open on the evidence, and consistent with existing findings. Commissioners decide the facts and how to express them. They need not identify every item of evidence relied upon or explain which evidence they rejected. The court should avoid nit-picking, particularly where general commissioners are a lay body and the case stated broadly covers the relevant issues. Remission is inappropriate where the High Court can decide the appeal on the evidence available.

Able appealed to the High Court by way of case stated from a decision of the General Commissioners for the Division of Hartlepool with Stockton on Tees. The Commissioners had dismissed Able’s appeal against the Revenue’s treatment of compensation received following the withdrawal of a compulsory purchase order as income rather than capital.

Pending the substantive appeal, Able sought an order under section 56(6) or section 56(7) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 remitting the case stated for further findings and details of the evidence supporting findings concerning the valuation of revenue loss, the interruption to its landfill business, and contemporaneous documents. The issue was whether clarification was required before the appeal could proceed.

1. Application dismissed. The court declined to remit the case stated or require the Commissioners to identify the evidence supporting their findings.
2. The governing principles, drawn from Consolidated Goldfields plc v IRC [1990] STC 357 and Carvill v IRC [1996] STC 126, were that the Commissioners find the facts and choose how to express them. Additional findings may be ordered only if they are material to a tenable argument, reasonably open on the evidence, and consistent with existing findings. The court should avoid nit-picking where the case stated broadly covers the relevant territory.
3. Commissioners are not generally required to set out evidence in detail or identify evidence they rejected. That principle, supported by Johnson v Scott [1978] STC 48 and Tersons v Stevenage [1965] 1 QB 37, applied with particular force to general commissioners. Greater latitude and restraint were appropriate because they were a lay body.
4. The statements challenged in paragraphs 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 of the case stated did not require clarification. Their evidential sufficiency could be assessed at the substantive appeal, with the available evidence before the court.
5. The position differed from Whittles v Uniholdings Ltd [1993] STC 671, where clarification was necessary because the court could not decide the appeal without resolving the Commissioners’ finding of a composite transaction. The parties should first seek to agree a note of the oral evidence; the Commissioners should not ordinarily be ordered to produce their own notes.

The judgment concerned an interim application in an appeal to the High Court by way of case stated from the General Commissioners. The substantive appeal was listed for a later hearing. This application for remission and clarification was dismissed.