header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 September 2007 / Tim Crosley , Michael Walsh
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Bad pennies

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Tim Crosley and Michael Walsh analyse the implications of HMRC’s defeat in Sempra

“Legal rules which are not soundly based resemble proverbial bad pennies: they turn up again and again.” The bad penny to which Lord Nicholls was referring was the “negative attitude of English law to awards of compound interest on claims for debts paid late” in Sempra Metals Ltd v IRC [2007] UKHL 34, [2007] All ER (D) 294 (Jul). In a complex and lengthy judgment where all five law lords had their say, the majority refused the appeal of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). The origins of the claim lie in the unlawful levying of advance corporation tax (ACT) by the UK government, but the decision is undoubtably of more general significance.

BACKGROUND

The UK required UK companies paying a dividend to pay ACT to HMRC from 1973 until its abolition in 1999. As the name suggests, ACT was an advance payment of corporation tax. ACT paid could be set off against the UK company’s normal liability to pay corporation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll