Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T14:25:09.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Unrecognised States and Liability for Income Tax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Colin Warbrick ,
Dominic McGoldrick  and
Colin Warbrick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The object of this short note is to draw attention to a decision of the Special Commissioners of Inland Revenue (the Commissioners) which deals with the liability for income tax of officials of an unrecognised State.1 Section 321 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (the Taxes Act) provides exemption from liability for income tax for foreign consuls in the United Kingdom and for “an official agent in the United Kingdom for any foreign state, not being … a Commonwealth citizen”. An “official agent” is a person, other than a consul, “who is employed on the staff of any consulate, official department or agency of a foreign state”.

Type
Current Developments: Public International Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 954 - 960
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Caglar and Others v. Billingham (Inspector of Taxes) [1996] S.T.C. 150. The references which follow are to the paragraphs of the transcript, for the sight of which I am grateful to Lady Fox QC, one of the counsel for the appellants in the case.Google Scholar

2. [1995] S.T.C. 741. The affidavit presented by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in those proceedings is reproduced in U.K.M.I.L. 1994 (1994) 65 B.Y.I.L. 590–591.Google Scholar

3. Evidence was given on behalf of the taxpayer-appellants by Necatigil, Z. M., author of The Cyprus Question and the Turkish Position in International Law (2nd edn, 1995)Google Scholar and on behalf of the Revenue by Polyviou, P. G., author of Cyprus, Conflict and Negotiation, 1960–1980 (1980).Google Scholar

4. 164 B.F.S.P. 388.

5. S.C.Res.541 (18 Nov. 1983), para.7 calls upon all States not to recognise any Cypriot State other than the Republic of Cyprus.

6. S.C.Res.551 (11 May 1984).

7. First affidavit of Haydon Boyd Warren-Gash in Appeals of Resat Caglar and others.

8. Transcript, paras.79–94.

9. Idem, para.150.

10. S.2(2)(a) defines the territory of Pakistan to include East Bengal.

11. The matter was not dealt with in the Bangladesh Act 1975.

12. Transcript, para. 147.

13. Re Al-Fin Corporation's Patent [1970] 1 Ch. 160.Google Scholar

14. Transcript, para.74.

15. Idem, para.76.

16. Idem, paras.121–122.

17. See Talmon, S., “Recognition of Governments: An Analysis of the New British Policy and Practice” (1992) 63 B.Y.I.L. 231, 293–294.Google Scholar

18. Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933, Art.1.

19. Transcript, para.165.

20. Dugard, J., International Law: A South African Perspective, pp.60–64. (The transcript mistakenly refers to this as Dugard's Recognition and the United Nations.)Google Scholar

21. As Professor Dugard's other writings make clear; see Recognition and the United Nations (1987), pp.98–108.Google Scholar

22. Crawford, J., The Creation of States in International Law (1979), pp.225–226.Google Scholar

23. Transcript, para.162.

24. See Talmon, , op. cit. supra n.17, at pp.269–270.Google Scholar

25. See transcript, para.157 and Republic of Somalia v. Woodhouse Drake & Carey (Suisse) [1992] 3 W.L.R. 744.Google Scholar

26. Transcript, para. 163.

27. S.C.O.R., 2497th Meeting, 17 Nov. 1983, p.9.Google Scholar

28. See S.C.Res.939 (29 July 1994).

29. It was accepted that this was a matter to be decided about each individual appellant. The Commissioners considered only the circumstances of the appellant Caglar.

30. Transcript, paras.208, 231. Para.231 contains some curious remarks about self-determination, though not ones which go to the merits of the decision.

31. Idem, para.244.

32. Ibid.