That's all, folks!
It was December 1976. Playwright Terry Frisby together with Andrew Park and an accountant, Frank Young, had arrived at a crucial meeting with the Revenue's Technical Division. The outcome would decide whether or not Terry Frisby faced bankruptcy.
There was a forlorn hope that the Statute of Limitations might apply and save the day, but Andrew had warned that strictly, in the circumstances of the case, this would not work.
So this hugely important meeting got under way. To everyone's surprise, Mr Sinfield of the Revenue opened with an announcement that he would indeed apply the Statute of Limitations. Therefore income prior to 1970 would not be assessed. Terry Frisby completes the story as follows (taken from his book Outrageous Fortune):
'There was not a flicker of response from Andrew, Frank or me. We sat, apparently listening attentively for what he had to say next, but I know I received a charge of adrenaline that nearly made me leap up and run screaming round the room. The vast majority of my royalties had come in before 1970. Frank's foot found mine and pressed on it under the table. I moved mine away, fearful of doing anything that would betray any feeling. I was having great difficulty controlling myself. Then Andrew answered Sinfield's bombshell with one of his own.
'”I can't accept that”, he said.
'Frank's head jerked round simultaneously with mine and we stared in fear and astonishment at Andrew. He apparently didn't notice and went on to explain in his calm, academic manner why being given precisely what we barely dared to hope for was unacceptable. He argued a minor point of tax law that made no real difference to anything and pursued it pedantically for some while as I sweated. Eventually he reluctantly conceded, and brushed his forelock from his eyes in a manner that suggested he had given away a fortune. Before we could breathe he went on to win the next point, a more important one. It was a brilliant piece of negotiating. The big, all-important concession was confirmed and incorporated as though nothing had happened.
'I had listened to Andrew for five years. He had made intricate tax law simple … I had always liked him, but in that moment he showed steel through the anxious look and research-graduate demeanour that commanded more than amicability.'
That, I think, sums up Sir Andrew Park on behalf of all of us. When he was at the Bar, I went to many of his presentations at Institute meetings when complex tax issues came over with such clarity, self-evident truth, that you went away wondering how you had failed to understand them previously.
However, the real strength of his practice at the Bar was in his advocacy work. Between 1975 and 1998 he appeared in well over 100 reported cases, sometimes for the taxpayer and sometimes for the Crown.
Space does not permit me to even begin to scratch the surface of this phenomenal practice, unrivalled in my time as a tax practitioner, but a few names will offer you a quick flavour: for the taxpayer in the Apple and Pear case; for the Crown in the McGuckian case; for the taxpayer in Wescott v Woolcombers; for the Crown in Proctor and Gamble; for the taxpayer in the Bowater Property case.
His unwavering determination was demonstrated in the Johnson Matthey case: won before the General Commissioners, but then lost in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, following which Andrew said he would go to his grave saying that they were wrong. They were, because he won in the House of Lords.
Not that he was by any means successful every time. He still maintains that he should not have lost in Mallalieu v Drummond and the barrister client should have been allowed a deduction for her court clothing.
Another important aspect of Andrew's professional life was his (er gulp!) bicycle, or what remained of it. This particular model was not one of mankind's greatest inventions, rust being one of its main features. It looked to me like a lady's model, with a basket on the front and it went back and forth every day from chambers to Waterloo Station. Perhaps the basket was purpose made for law books, rather than Sainsbury's?
This all serves to illustrate that Andrew is a modest person, of sensitive disposition and quite unaffected by all his years as the 'doyen of the tax Bar'. He was elevated to the Bench in 1998 since when it has been a pleasure to read his High Court judgments in tax cases displaying obvious mastery of the complete subject. He retires at the end of June, and so it seemed appropriate to pen these few words to wish him a long and happy retirement.
Written by Malcolm Gunn FTII, TEP.
No back up
Some US states are undermining an initiative by the Organisation for Co-operation and Development to track global financial data. By continuing to incorporate anonymously-owned US companies for foreigners, the states are ignoring new international 'transparency' standards even while their government demands that other countries adopt them.
The OECD has just issued a report, 'Tax Co-operation: Towards a Level Playing Field', looking at how 82 countries collect and exchange tax information. The report was undertaken following complaints from small finance centres about OECD countries demanding onerous data tracking obligations they were unwilling to implement at home.
The report shows that most small countries with international finance centres have put in place mechanisms which enhance transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. But US states such as Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming still fall far short of what the OECD is demanding of small countries in terms of transparency and exchange of information.
Richard Hay, co-chairman of the International Committee of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, says: 'The OECD's bid to end harmful tax practices cannot just be for the little people in the global economy. If companies with secret ownership merely migrate out of small finance centres and into the US, what is the point of the OECD's project?
'If the US federal government is unable to commit its states because of the constitutional division of powers, then the states should be asked to commit directly, just as the British overseas territories and crown dependencies have done.'
STEP press release dated 12 June 2006
