| R (National Federation of Self-Employment and Small Businesses Ltd) v IRC | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Full case name | R (National Federation of Self-Employment and Small Businesses Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners |
| Citation(s) | [1982] AC 617 |
| Keywords | |
| Judicial review | |
R (NFSE) v IRC [1982] AC 617 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
The NFSE, a group of taxpayers, claimed the Inland Revenue Commissioners rules for levying tax on casual wages for Fleet Street newspaper staff, was unlawful. For many years, employees had given fictitious names to evade tax. The IRC agreed with employers and unions on a tax collection scheme for future years, and the previous two years in return for an undertaking by the IRC not to investigate earlier years. The NFSE argued they never got such favour, and argued the scheme was unlawful. It sought mandamus ordering the IRC to collect tax as required by law.
The Court of Appeal held the NFSE had sufficient interest in the matter for the application to be heard, and assumed the scheme was unlawful.
The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords held by a majority (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Roskill) that the NFSE did not have a sufficient interest in challenging decisions concerning other taxpayers, and nor did taxpayers generally in others affairs, unlike ratepayers ( Arsenal FC v Ende [1979] AC 1). The question of sufficient interest had to be resolved in relation to what was known by the court of the matter under review, and on the evidence the tax scheme was a lawful exercise of the IRC’s discretion.
Lord Fraser stressed the sufficient interest test was a logically prior question that had to be answered before any question of merits arose.
Lord Diplock dissented, holding the NFSE had sufficient interest but the case failed on its merits.
Lord Scarman disagreed with the majority, adopting a broader approach to standing but holding that the NFSE did not have a sufficient interest because they did not have an arguable case.
In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that a taxpayer has standing to sue the government to prevent an unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds.
"Ramsay principle" is the shorthand name given to the decision of the House of Lords in two important cases in the field of UK tax, reported in 1982:
Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.
Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body. A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an injunction upon the public body.
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government. The issue was whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the existence of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The case centered on three Supreme Court precedents: Flast v. Cohen, Bowen v. Kendrick, and Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State.
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
Pape v Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which sought to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with its full reasons released on 7 July 2009.
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the authority of states to regulate the electoral process, and the point at which state regulations of the electoral process violate the First Amendment freedoms.
Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1974] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts.
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana, assistant district attorney (ADA). She had been fired by her superior, District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., when, after receiving a transfer she had fiercely resisted in private conversations with him and his chief assistant district attorney, she distributed a questionnaire to her fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with Connick's management practices. At trial, Judge Jack Gordon of the Eastern District of Louisiana found the firing had been motivated by the questionnaire and was thus an infringement on her right to speak out on matters of public concern as a public employee. After the Fifth Circuit affirmed the verdict, Connick appealed to the Supreme Court.
Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.
Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v IRC [2012] UKSC 19 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning liability for overpaid tax, and limitation of claims. The Supreme Court made a reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2007] UKHL 34 is a UK tax law case, concerning the availability of compound interest upon personal claims. The effect of the case, decided by a majority, was to reverse the outcome of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC. However, the Supreme Court departed from this ruling in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners.
Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542 (2015), is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to Maryland's personal income tax scheme and found that the failure to provide a full credit for income taxes paid to other states was unconstitutional.
Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] UKHL 1 is a United Kingdom administrative law case, concerning judicial review.
R v SS for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
R (Wilson) v Prime Minister [2019] EWCA Civ 304 is a UK constitutional law case, involving judicial review of the Brexit Referendum in 2016. The claimants, including Wilson, argued that illegality through Russian interference, criminal overspending by Vote Leave and criminal investigation into the largest donor, Arron Banks, before and during the referendum undermined the integrity of the result, and rendered the decision to leave void. The application was refused in the High Court. In December 2018, the claimants lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. This was rejected on 21 February.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful.