The Financial Times reported (16 May) that several sitting High Court judges have invested in tax arrangements that have been subject to challenge by HMRC. One of the judges has since ruled on tax avoidance cases which, according to the FT, ‘raises questions about the UK’s lax approach to disclosure of judicial interests’.
The investments were made many years ago, before the individuals’ appointment to the High Court, but the judges are alleged to have retained their interests in the schemes after taking up their current positions.
Although there is no general requirement for judges to disclose their financial interests, they are expected to inform the parties in a case they are adjudicating if they believe there could be a potential conflict of interest. Where a judge is ruling on questions similar to those surrounding schemes she herself had invested in, it would appear prudent to step aside, as Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates commented to the FT: ‘If her dispute was over, then there was no direct conflict, but still potential for bias, given it would be hard for her to avoid [adjudicating] points that were relevant to her own scheme. So I feel she should have recused herself.’
The Financial Times reported (16 May) that several sitting High Court judges have invested in tax arrangements that have been subject to challenge by HMRC. One of the judges has since ruled on tax avoidance cases which, according to the FT, ‘raises questions about the UK’s lax approach to disclosure of judicial interests’.
The investments were made many years ago, before the individuals’ appointment to the High Court, but the judges are alleged to have retained their interests in the schemes after taking up their current positions.
Although there is no general requirement for judges to disclose their financial interests, they are expected to inform the parties in a case they are adjudicating if they believe there could be a potential conflict of interest. Where a judge is ruling on questions similar to those surrounding schemes she herself had invested in, it would appear prudent to step aside, as Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates commented to the FT: ‘If her dispute was over, then there was no direct conflict, but still potential for bias, given it would be hard for her to avoid [adjudicating] points that were relevant to her own scheme. So I feel she should have recused herself.’
