FS50181641: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50181641 | |dn_ref=FS50181641 | ||
|dn_date=22 | |dn_date=22 October 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=HM Revenue and Customs | |dn_pa=HM Revenue and Customs | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested copies of the information HMRC holds in relation to the civil action it instigated against KPMG concerning its administration of Leeds United, specifically the information formally served into the court. Although HMRC confirmed to the complainant that it held this information, it considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of the Act because of the prohibition on disclosure provided by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a). However, the Commissioner has concluded that HMRC breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of his request. Information Tribunal appeal number (EA/2008/0091) has been dismissed. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested copies of the information HMRC holds in relation to the civil action it instigated against KPMG concerning its administration of Leeds United, specifically the information formally served into the court. Although HMRC confirmed to the complainant that it held this information, it considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of the Act because of the prohibition on disclosure provided by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a). However, the Commissioner has concluded that HMRC breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of his request. Information Tribunal appeal number (EA/2008/0091) has been dismissed. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50181641.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50181641.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 44 | |dnd_section=FOI 44 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:29, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50181641
- Date: 22 October 2008
- Public Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
- Summary: The complainant requested copies of the information HMRC holds in relation to the civil action it instigated against KPMG concerning its administration of Leeds United, specifically the information formally served into the court. Although HMRC confirmed to the complainant that it held this information, it considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of the Act because of the prohibition on disclosure provided by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a). However, the Commissioner has concluded that HMRC breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of his request. Information Tribunal appeal number (EA/2008/0091) has been dismissed.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3
