This deals with the important matter of the Service. It should
be read in conjunction with Section 115 of the Taxes
Management Act 1970 and Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Regulation 26 makes an exception for Witness Summonses (which are
your own responsibility to serve) and prescribes that the Service
can be made by post, facsimile transmission or personal service.
(Regulation 26(1)(c))
The Regulations state that in the case of a body corporate,
the Notice may be sent to, delivered or left with the secretary or
clerk of that body. In the case of a large corporation or body of
trustees, it is important to address the Notice to the secretary as
it might not otherwise be identified as being of legal importance.
Similarly, it is wise, if possible, to mention the name of a
partner (Regulation 26(2)(c)) on any Notices relating to a
partnership. With a partnership comprising only two partners this
is not likely to be a problem, but some of the large professional
partnerships have hundreds of partners and a Commissioners' Notice
can easily be mislaid with the other post.
Regulation 26(3)(a) specifies that in the case of a company
either the registered office or the principal office is acceptable
for Service and there is the usual provision at Regulation 26(3)(d)
of the 'usual or last known address of that person' corresponding
to Section 115 of the Taxes Management Act 1970.
All of this raises what is known in law as a 'rebuttable
presumption'. This concept is necessary for the proper function of
legal procedure and it assumes that Notices, correctly addressed,
prepaid and posted in a regular fashion, have arrived in the
ordinary course of post unless it is proved to the contrary. That
proof need be no more than somebody saying 'I'm afraid I did not
receive the Notice'. As with all evidence, this oral evidence can
be subjected to cross- examination and may be accepted or rejected
by the Tribunal. Obviously, difficulties with the Service of
Notices will be more acceptable if there is evidence over other
postal communications, such as gas or electricity bills or a clear
confusion of addresses in the locality.
There is tax case law and non-tax case law on the Service of
Notices and it is known to be a difficult area. The rebuttal
presumption and associated matters were examined in the Court of
Appeal in some detail in
Rex versus the General Commissioners for the Division of
Tavistock ex-parte Adams (No 2) 1971. Other cases dealing
with Service are
Wing Hung Lai versus David F Bale (SpC 203), Holly &
Laurel versus John O'Leary (SpC), Regina versus the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, ex-parte Yeboah (Court of Appeal
1987) and the important case of Regina versus the County of London
Court of Sessions Appeals Committee ex parte Rossi (Queens Bench
Division 1956), (1QB 682), the latter case giving the
classic interpretation of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
There has been some case law arising from Value Add Tax cases
(see
Hayman versus Griffiths and Another and
Walker versus Hanby, and
Akman verses White) in the High Court of Justiciary
(1985). However, some of this related to the Post Office
being the taxpayer's agent under the previous criminal jurisdiction
of the Value Added Taxes Acts.
