United Kingdom Special Commissioners of Income Tax Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Special Commissioners of Income Tax Decisions >> Kw Lee & Hong Kong Chop Suey v Inland Revenue [2004] UKSC SPC00453 (08 December 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSPC/2004/SPC00453.html
Cite as: [2004] UKSC SPC453, [2004] UKSC SPC00453

---

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Kw Lee & Hong Kong Chop Suey v Inland Revenue [2004] UKSC SPC00453 (08 December 2004)

Return Self Assessment; Taxes Management Act 1970 Section 19A Notice; compromise; appeals settled and withdrawn

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS

K W LEE & HONG KONG CHOP SUEY Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE Respondents

Special Commissioner: J GORDON REID Q.C., F.C.I.Arb

Sitting in Edinburgh on 22 November 2004

James Paterson, Paterson Reid Chartered Accountants, for the Appellant

John Cormack, HM Inspector of Taxes Regional Appeals Unit, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION

The Special Commissioner, having heard parties' representatives, of consent:-

allows the appeal at the instance of KW LEE to be withdrawn;

allows the appeal at the instance of KW LEE and MRS CY LEE trading as HONG KONG CHIP SUEY to be withdrawn;

finds no expenses due to or by either party.

NOTE

These appeals were heard together on 22^nd November 2004. Mr James L Paterson C.A., F.T.I.I. appeared on behalf of the Appellants and Mr J. Cormack, Regional Appeals Unit, Huddersfield, appeared on behalf the Respondent (the "Revenue"). Various productions were lodged including agreed statements of facts, and the Revenue also produced written skeleton arguments.

At the outset, Mr Paterson indicated that he did not propose to proceed with Mr Lee's appeal. In relation to the other appeal, it became clear that the only issue between the parties was the requirement made under paragraph 6 of the Revenue's Notice under section 19A of the Taxes Management Act 1970, as amended (document C/26).

I then heard submissions in relation to that issue as to which the parties did not appear to be very far "apart". A short adjournment was then requested, which I granted. On resuming, Mr Paterson and Mr Cormack stated that they had reached a compromise and that they both wished the Hong Kong Chop Suey appeal to be withdrawn. I agreed to this proposal.

I am grateful to the parties' representatives for reaching what appears to be a sensible compromise. Should any further dispute arise, it may form the subject of a fresh appeal.

Finally, it was agreed that no question of expenses arose. I have, of consent, found no expenses due to or by either party.

J GORDON REID Q.C., F.C.I.Arb

SPECIAL COMMISSIONER

SC 3110/2004