header-logo header-logo

06 January 2017 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7728 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Confidence in the taxman?

nlj_7728_dobson

Confidential information held by public bodies for public purposes should be treated with the utmost care in accordance with statutory conditions, warns Nicholas Dobson

  • HMRC was not entitled to disclose confidential information to journalists on the basis that it was incidental to HMRC’s functions.

When you visit your doctor you expect your personal medical disclosures to be kept confidential. In other words they won’t be disclosed other than with your consent and for proper professional purposes to promote your health and well-being. Similar expectations apply to all professional interactions. And of course with that often unwelcome emanation of the state, HMRC—Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

But just how trustworthy are the tax people in these matters? Under what rules do tax officials operate and can they justifiably talk rather loosely and “off the record” to the press? A recent decision of the Supreme Court looked at this particular issue and considered the nature and extent of the statutory powers governing disclosure of information held for HMRC functions.

The case in question was R

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll