The Supreme Court has confirmed that the inspector’s power to request information directly is not subject to territorial restrictions. Furthermore, the Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) with Jersey does not require the inspector to first request information from the Jersey authorities. The use of the TIEA is regarded as an additional option, but is not mandatory as an alternative or substitute for approaching individuals directly. This is only different if the inspector’s actions are contrary to the general principles of good governance.
The Supreme Court reached this conclusion in a case involving a woman and her family, who moved from the Netherlands to Jersey in 2013. The Tax and Customs Administration suspects that they may have provided incomplete information relating to previous tax years. If the woman does not fully comply with a request for information, the tax inspector issues information orders. Subsequently, the tax inspector requests additional information via the TIEA with Jersey concerning the woman, her partner and their joint company. This leads to additional tax assessments. The woman argues that the inspector acted in breach of the TIEA and wrongly requested information directly from her. Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court ruled that this was not the case. The inspector acted lawfully. The information orders remain in force.