R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Fulford Dobson [1987] STC 344

Facts

  • Fulford Dobson and others challenged the Inland Revenue’s withdrawal of an extra-statutory concession related to capital gains tax computations on share disposals.
  • The concession previously allowed taxpayers to use the market value of shares at a specified date, which sometimes reduced their tax liability.
  • Upon withdrawal of the concession, the applicants faced higher tax liabilities, prompting them to seek judicial review.
  • The Inland Revenue had notified taxpayers of the withdrawal and the change in calculation methods.

Issues

  1. Whether the Inland Revenue’s withdrawal of the extra-statutory concession regarding capital gains tax calculations was lawful.
  2. Whether extra-statutory concessions can create legally enforceable legitimate expectations for taxpayers.
  3. Whether the Inland Revenue’s decision to withdraw the concession met requirements of rationality and procedural fairness.

Decision

  • The court held that the Inland Revenue has limited discretionary powers and cannot override or materially alter statutory tax law via extra-statutory concessions.
  • Withdrawal of the concession was found to be rational and not so unreasonable as to fail the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.
  • The court determined that the applicants’ alleged legitimate expectation did not arise, given the concession was expressly non-binding and subject to withdrawal.
  • The Inland Revenue acted fairly by providing notification of the withdrawal to affected taxpayers.

Legal Principles

  • Extra-statutory concessions do not have the power to override or alter statutory provisions and are not legally enforceable.
  • Tax authorities must remain within statutory boundaries in granting and withdrawing concessions.
  • The Wednesbury unreasonableness standard is used to assess administrative decisions: a decision is unlawful only if no reasonable authority could have reached it.
  • Legitimate expectations may arise from clear, unambiguous assurances, but not where a concession is explicitly non-binding and withdrawable.
  • Procedural fairness is satisfied by adequate notice and transparency in administrative action.

Conclusion

The High Court confirmed that extra-statutory concessions granted by the Inland Revenue are non-binding and can be withdrawn, provided statutory tax law is not contravened and administrative fairness is observed, thus reaffirming the limits of administrative discretion in tax matters.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal