Case Law Details
The long-awaited decision in the Prudential case was handed down by the UK Supreme Court on the morning of Wednesday 23 January.
R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) (Appellants) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another (Respondents) was heard by a full panel of seven law lords. By a majority of five to two (Lords Clarke and Sumption dissenting), the UK Supreme Court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and confirmed the long-established principle that legal advice privilege (LAP) attaches only to advice provided by members of the legal profession.
Background
The case concerned a “tax avoidance scheme” that had been marketed by an accountancy firm in 2004 to Prudential plc. In the course of their enquiries into the effect of the planning in 2007, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) sought disclosure of certain transaction documentation. The taxpayer refused to disclose the documents, asserting that they were covered by LAP, notwithstanding that the advice in respect of the planning had been provided by members of the accountancy profession rather than the legal profession.
The matter came before the UK courts when the taxpayer sought judicial review of a direction from the Special Commissioners to disclose the transaction documentation to HMRC.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
On the subject matter, those interested may usefully read also the related following:
@Indiacorpblog, the articles titled, –
1.Legal advice privilege for tax advice given by non-lawyers
2.SEBI Investment Advisers Regulations – an overkill?
Article titled
A Warning to Wall St. About Misleading Clients by
PETER J. HENNING
LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
www. asb.unsw.edu.au/schools/taxationandbusinesslaw/atta/attajournal/Documents/2_Kendall_JATTA_vol1_no3.pdf
PROSPECTS FOR A TAX ADVISORS’ PRIVILEGE IN AUSTRALIA by
KEITH KENDALL