Revenue Rule

Table of Contents

Cases

United States of America v. Harden, 63 DTC 1276, [1963] CTC 450, [1963] S.C.R. 366

U.S. tax judgment not enforceable in Canada

The U.S. government obtained a judgment from a U.S. court for U.S. income taxes owing by the respondent, who now was resident in B.C. In affirming the findings below that this judgment was unenforceable in the B.C. Supreme Court, Cartwright J stated (at pp. 369, 371, SCR):

[T]he appellant [did not] question the well-established general rule...that a foreign state is precluded from suing in this country for taxes due under the law of the foreign state... .

[A] foreign State cannot escape the application of this rule, which is one of public policy, by taking a judgment in its own courts and bringing suit here on that judgment. The claim asserted remains a claim for taxes.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Territorial Limits revenue rule 46

See Also

Ben Nevis (Holdings) Ltd. v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners, [2013] BTC 485, [2013] EWCA Civ 578

Before rejecting the taxpayer's submission that Article 25A did not apply to permit the collection through the respondent (HMRC) of South African tax debts arising prior to the coming into force of the 2002 Convention between South Africa and the U.K., Lloyd Jones LJ stated (at para. 23):

For centuries, courts in this jurisdiction have refused to entertain claims for the enforcement of revenue or other public laws of a foreign State (See, for example, Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491). …[T] his reflects a well-established and almost universal principle that the courts of one country will not enforce the penal and revenue laws of another country. The principle is, however, subject to contrary agreement by treaty… .

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Retroactivity/Retrospectivity creation of new collection right did not entail retrospectivity 159
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Revenue Rule pre-Treaty revenue rule 122
Tax Topics - Treaties Vienna convention approach applies to non-signatories 197
Tax Topics - Treaties - Income Tax Conventions - Article 26A new tax collection Article applied to old tax debts 222

Ben Nevis (Holdings) Ltd. v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners, [2013] BTC 485, [2013] EWCA Civ 578

pre-Treaty revenue rule

Before rejecting the taxpayer's submission that Article 25A of the Convention between South Africa and the U.K. did not apply to permit the collection through the respondent (HMRC) of South African tax debts of the taxpayer arising prior to the coming into force of the Convention, Lloyd Jones LJ stated (at para. 23):

For centuries, courts in this jurisdiction have refused to entertain claims for the enforcement of revenue or other public laws of a foreign State (See, for example, Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491). …[T]his reflects a well-established and almost universal principle that the courts of one country will not enforce the penal and revenue laws of another country. The principle is, however, subject to contrary agreement by treaty… .

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Retroactivity/Retrospectivity creation of new collection right did not entail retrospectivity 159
Tax Topics - Treaties Vienna convention approach applies to non-signatories 197
Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Revenue Rule 116
Tax Topics - Treaties - Income Tax Conventions - Article 26A new tax collection Article applied to old tax debts 222

Relfo Ltd. v. Varsani (2008), 11 ITLR 783 (Singapore HC)

The day before going into liquidation, the directors of a company transferred all the company's assets to an overseas bank, with the equivalent sum of money appearing in the defendant's account in another overseas bank. The claim of the liquidator of the company against the defendant was unenforceable given that the interests of the liquidator of the plaintiff were aligned with those of the UK Inland Revenue as the sole creditor of the company at the time of the action and given that the current liquidator had been appointed by the UK Inland Revenue.