Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

TAX NEWS: Love and peace, and the Consolidated Tax Fund. By Nichola Ross Martin

by
10th May 2006
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

A group of tax-paying pacifists, known as 'The Peace Seven', has failed to persuade the Court of Appeal that their human rights have been breached by the treasury's failure to separate their tax receipts from the general fund which is used, amongst other things, for military purposes.

The 'Seven', all concientious objectors, do not object to paying taxes, but want the treasury to set up a special fund, money from which could not be used for military purposes.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion says:

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
  • Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
  • The First Protocol of Article 1 relates to the Protection of Property:

  • Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
  • The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
  • The pacifists were appealing against the High Court's decision not to permit a judicial review to test the whether the treasury's failure to establish a special fund or account use for non-military purposes only was lawful.

    The Court of Appeal looked at the leading cases heard in the European Court of Justice on Article 9 in the context of general taxation and heard submissions from both parties.

    HM Treasury accepted that pacifist beliefs were capable of falling within Article 9, while pointing out the qualified nature of the right to manifest beliefs, as compared to the absolute nature of the right to hold the beliefs. The raising of revenue by the imposition of general taxation is "neutral" from a religious or moral point of view. It is not sufficiently intimately linked to the manifestation of religious or philosophical belief to engage Article 9. Likewise, once tax is paid it goes into a Consolidated fund and loses its separate identity. The term military purposes is also very wide, it covers peace-keeping and protection functions amongst others.

    The Treasury made five points to demonstrate that the proposal by the Seven was disproportionate and that the interference complained of justified.

  • The government is entitled to require everyone to contribute towards the cost of defence.
  • It is impractical and costly to set up particular funds for particular beliefs, these could extend beyond objections to the use of taxes for military purposes to a wide range of other religious and philosophical objections.
  • The degree of interference with the rights in question is extremely limited, whereas the public interest pursued in defending the whole community is extremely important.
  • The proposal is undemocratic. If you live in a democratic society, you cannot seek tailor-made concessions to accommodate their own beliefs, while making no concessions to the general interest of the community as a whole.
  • The proposal ignores the specific wording of article 1 of the First Protocol, which provides that the protection of the peaceful enjoyment of a person's possessions does not impair the right of a State to enforce laws deemed necessary to secure the payment of taxes.
  • The three judges unanimously agreed to disallow the appeal. The Seven can still take their complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the settled scope of Article 9.

    Case: R (Boughton & Ors) v.HM Treasury [2006] EWCA Civ 504

    Nichola Ross Martin

    Tags:

    Replies (0)

    Please login or register to join the discussion.

    There are currently no replies, be the first to post a reply.