In Clavis Liberty Fund v HMRC [2015] UKUT 72 (12 February 2015) the UT found that the FTT had had no jurisdiction to issue witness summonses.
The FTT had set aside two witness summonses. The main issue was whether the FTT had jurisdiction to issue summonses to witnesses who did not reside in the UK and did not have a place of business there.
The UT first observed that there was a significant difference of approach between the civil procedure rules (CPR) which focused on the service of documents and the Tax Chamber Rules (TCR) which are concerned with the sending delivery and receipt of documents. However it noted that applying Phipson on Evidence under both the CPR and the TPR the English courts will not compel a non-party abroad to provide documentary or oral evidence...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Clavis Liberty Fund v HMRC [2015] UKUT 72 (12 February 2015) the UT found that the FTT had had no jurisdiction to issue witness summonses.
The FTT had set aside two witness summonses. The main issue was whether the FTT had jurisdiction to issue summonses to witnesses who did not reside in the UK and did not have a place of business there.
The UT first observed that there was a significant difference of approach between the civil procedure rules (CPR) which focused on the service of documents and the Tax Chamber Rules (TCR) which are concerned with the sending delivery and receipt of documents. However it noted that applying Phipson on Evidence under both the CPR and the TPR the English courts will not compel a non-party abroad to provide documentary or oral evidence...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
