Judicial review and tax

What is judicial review?

Judicial review (JR):

  1. is the procedure whereby the court considers whether the decision of a public body was lawful, and

  2. has been described as a review of the manner in which a decision was made

JR proceedings can be taken against:

  1. any public body, including HMRC, and

  2. legislation

For more information on JR and tax, see Practice Notes: Judicial review in tax cases at the High Court and Judicial review in tax cases at the Upper Tribunal.

For more information on JR generally, see Practice Note: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used.

Judicial review—a last resort

JR is normally only available when there is no adequate alternative remedy, but a claim must be made promptly after the grounds to make a claim arise. If a taxpayer has a statutory right to appeal an HMRC decision, the taxpayer should make an appeal. See Practice Note: Appealing an HMRC decision for information on when there is a right to appeal against an HMRC decision. If the taxpayer also has grounds

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents