Key Facts
- •Mr. Monteil was an employee of CLICO Trinidad, whose employment agreement transferred to CL Financial Ltd in 2005.
- •In 2009, the Trinidad and Tobago government bailed out CL Financial Ltd, becoming its largest creditor.
- •Mr. Monteil submitted his 2007/2008 tax return, which the Revenue later audited and proposed to adjust upwards by TT$12,091,945.56 due to unreported income and benefits.
- •The Revenue assessed Mr. Monteil's income tax liability at TT$20,351,875.61 (later adjusted to TT$12,383,117.40).
- •Mr. Monteil appealed, arguing the PAYE provisions of the Income Tax Act were the mandatory and exclusive means of recovering unpaid income tax, thus the Revenue should recover from his insolvent former employers.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation requires seeking the meaning of words used by Parliament, considering the context of the statute as a whole.
Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria [2014] UKSC 10; R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349; R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3
Three stages of tax imposition: declaration of liability, assessment, and recovery methods (Whitney v Inland Revenue Comrs [1926] AC 37).
Whitney v Inland Revenue Comrs [1926] AC 37
The PAYE system (section 99) does not preclude other methods of assessment and recovery of unpaid tax. Employee liability remains, even if the employer fails to deduct and remit.
Sections 99(3), 99(10), 89, 83, 88, 104, 110, 112, and analysis in paragraphs 23-40.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The PAYE provisions of the Income Tax Act are not the mandatory and exclusive means of recovering unpaid income tax from an employee. The Revenue was entitled to raise an additional assessment under section 89.