Ingenious Media has lost its legal appeal that HMRC had breached its duty of confidentiality and acted unlawfully by discussing the investment company’s controversial film investment schemes with journalists.
HMRC was challenging the validity of the film schemes, which generated relief for investors.
The Court of Appeal case [C1/2013/3302] focused on a meeting in 2012 between Dave Hartnett, the then permanent secretary for tax at HMRC, and two journalists from the Times newspaper.
The meeting, which Hartnett and the journalists agreed was ‘off the record’ was to brief the journalists about tax avoidance. During the meeting, the film schemes of Ingenious and its chief executive Patrick McKenna were also discussed.
The journalists used some of the information in a story for the Times. McKenna and Ingenious took legal action, claiming that HMRC had breached confidentiality.
In 2013, the High Court rejected Ingenious’s claim on the basis it was off the record, and that had Hartnett “proper and lawful reasons” for disclosing the information.
The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal.
In his ruling, Sir Robin Jacob, said It was “entirely in the public interest that HMRC should let the public know its views about these [Ingenious Media film] schemes.”
In a statement HMRC said it takes it takes its responsibility to keep taxpayer data confidential “extremely seriously and will continue to do so."
An HMRC spokesperson told AccountingWEB: “It is only right that we do not repay any claims unless and until we are satisfied that the money is due.
“We consider each case on its own merits. Where we agree that companies' arrangements are the same as those in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secret Hotels2 Limited, HMRC will and has resolved companies' claims.”
Ingenious said in a statement that it was “amazed by the apparent ruling by the Court of Appeal that HMRC may disregard their own protocols regarding disclosure of individual taxpayer information to the media.
“The outcome is “inconsistent with the position HMRC itself has adopted when refusing to comment on named taxpayers when being examined by Parliamentary Select Committees. We will be studying the judgment closely and considering our next steps."