Philip Ridd Solicitor to the Inland Revenue (1999–2005) who was involved in Pepper v Hart and attended the House of Lords hearings offers his thoughts on the case
In an article in the Spring 2007 issue of Public Law at pages 1–12 Mr Francis Bennion updated his views about Pepper v Hart[1993] AC 593. It may be expected that a reaction from a Revenue official (if retired) would maintain that the House of Lords was wrong to overrule the decisions of the Court of Appeal and of the High Court in the Revenue's favour. That is not however the purpose of this note. Its main purpose is rather to endorse Mr Bennion's themes ...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Philip Ridd Solicitor to the Inland Revenue (1999–2005) who was involved in Pepper v Hart and attended the House of Lords hearings offers his thoughts on the case
In an article in the Spring 2007 issue of Public Law at pages 1–12 Mr Francis Bennion updated his views about Pepper v Hart[1993] AC 593. It may be expected that a reaction from a Revenue official (if retired) would maintain that the House of Lords was wrong to overrule the decisions of the Court of Appeal and of the High Court in the Revenue's favour. That is not however the purpose of this note. Its main purpose is rather to endorse Mr Bennion's themes ...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")