2nd case today

[Donald Ramsbottom]

This one is on privacy and the Inland Revenue and the EHCR/HR, guess who
won. Do not read if law offends you.



Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte
  Banque Internationale =E0 Luxembourg SA=20

  Before Mr Justice Lightman=20

  Judgment June 23, 2000=20

  Notices served by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue
  requiring the delivery up of documents and information did
  not involve a breach of the right to privacy where there
  was justification for service of the notices and where they
  were served in pursuit of a legitimate aim. Such notices
  were necessary in a democratic society for protecting the
  taxation system.=20

  Mr Justice Lightman, sitting as an additional judge of the
  Queen's Bench Division, so held refusing the application
  of Banque Internationale =E0 Luxembourg SA, the applicant,
  to quash the decisions of the commissioners, the
  respondents, to issue and serve on the applicant notices
  under section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 and
  section 767 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act
  1988.=20

  Mr Gerard Clarke for the applicant; Miss Ingrid Simler
  for the respondents.=20

  MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN said that the commissioners
  had served the section 20 and section 767 notices in the
  course of their investigations into large scale corporate tax
  avoidance schemes.=20

  Finance and banking facilities for the schemes were
  provided by the applicant. The commissioners served the
  notices requesting the delivery up of certain documents.=20

  The respondent challenged the validity of the notices on
  several grounds including the ground that they impinged on
  the confidentiality and rights of privacy of the applicant
  and its client companies.=20

  There was nothing to suggest that the commissioners had
  not taken those factors into account when considering
  whether or not to issue the notices.=20

  In so far as the notices did interfere with any rights
  protected by article 8 of the Convention for the Protection
  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950
  (1953, Cmd 8969), there was ample justification under
  article 8.2.=20

  The notices were issued according to law, in pursuit of a
  legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society for
  protecting the taxation system and revenue.=20

  That was supported by the decisions of the European
  Court of Human Rights in Funke v France ((1993) 16
  EHRR 297) and Chappell v United Kingdom ((1990)
  12 EHRR 1).=20

  Solicitors: Norton Rose; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.=20
Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons).

RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors
Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists
5 Seagrove Avenue, Hayling Island, Hants, PO11 9EU, England.
Tel (023) 9246 5931 Fax (023)9246 8349
Ramsbottom & Co is regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of investment
business