the Editor: February 2007 Archives
A landowning couple have discovered that they are liable for repairs to the local parish church.
The couple had bought former glebe land. Under medieval canon law, the owners of such land were lay rectors of the parish, and were liable for the cost of repairs to the chancel of the parish church. There was a reciprocal right to tithes, but that was abolished in 1936. The couple were presented with a bill for repairs in 2000, which they refused to pay.
The case has only now been decided by the House of Lords, by which time the costs had climbed almost to £200,000.
What does this have to do with tax? Well, when I read the news report of the House of Lords' decision, I remembered coming across this very case a few years ago, but in the context of tax and human rights. I did a little digging, and sure enough, there it was: Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank and another [2001] EWCA Civ 713. This was at the Court of Appeal. The couple had argued that the liability for payment was contrary to the Human Right Act 1998, specifically, their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In addition, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that a public body must not act in a way that is incompatible with a right conferred by the European Convention of Human Rights.
The couple had bought former glebe land. Under medieval canon law, the owners of such land were lay rectors of the parish, and were liable for the cost of repairs to the chancel of the parish church. There was a reciprocal right to tithes, but that was abolished in 1936. The couple were presented with a bill for repairs in 2000, which they refused to pay.
The case has only now been decided by the House of Lords, by which time the costs had climbed almost to £200,000.
What does this have to do with tax? Well, when I read the news report of the House of Lords' decision, I remembered coming across this very case a few years ago, but in the context of tax and human rights. I did a little digging, and sure enough, there it was: Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank and another [2001] EWCA Civ 713. This was at the Court of Appeal. The couple had argued that the liability for payment was contrary to the Human Right Act 1998, specifically, their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In addition, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that a public body must not act in a way that is incompatible with a right conferred by the European Convention of Human Rights.
Continue reading Landowners liable for repairs to village church.
Interesting news in the press about a businessman who has had to forfeit a tax overpayment of £846,000. According to the Daily Telegraph, this was because he had tried to claim it after the one year deadline for amending tax returns had expired.
True, but that is not the whole story. In fact, his appeal to the High Court did not even hinge on that point. His lawyers knew there was no hope of the one year deadline being disturbed, whatever the facts of the case, so they did not base their arguments on that. That issue did not even arise in the case, save for a few passing comments by the judge, Sir Andrew Morritt. He signposted the futility of bringing an action on that point. The deadline had passed, and that was that.
The case instead centred on section 33 of the Taxes Management Act 1970. In broad terms, that section provides for repayment where tax is overpaid as a result of error or mistake. However, sub-section (2A) of that section denies relief if the erroneous tax was computed on the basis of practice generally prevailing at the time the tax return was made.
True, but that is not the whole story. In fact, his appeal to the High Court did not even hinge on that point. His lawyers knew there was no hope of the one year deadline being disturbed, whatever the facts of the case, so they did not base their arguments on that. That issue did not even arise in the case, save for a few passing comments by the judge, Sir Andrew Morritt. He signposted the futility of bringing an action on that point. The deadline had passed, and that was that.
The case instead centred on section 33 of the Taxes Management Act 1970. In broad terms, that section provides for repayment where tax is overpaid as a result of error or mistake. However, sub-section (2A) of that section denies relief if the erroneous tax was computed on the basis of practice generally prevailing at the time the tax return was made.
Continue reading Recovery of overpaid tax.
