Correspondence between Revenue Jersey and HMRC

​​​Request 722927077

Disclosure of any email correspondence between Revenue Jersey (specifically the Deputy Comptroller of Taxes) with HMRC in the UK regarding the nature of ADCs (Approved Drawdown Contracts) for Jersey tax purposes during 2019 or 2020.

Response

A review of the Deputy Comptroller’s emails during the specified period found no relevant correspondence with HMRC. The requested information is therefore not held, and Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law applies.

Article applied 

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.​

Internal Review Request

​I would like to further this Freedom of Information Request as I believe the response I have received is not accurate. 

Specifically could you please disclose correspondence between Paul Eastwood when he was Deputy Comptroller at Revenue Jersey and Ray Evans Head of QROPS at HMRC on Policy matters relating to Approved Drawdown Contracts and them qualifying as QROPS.

This is a significant matter of identifying Revenue Jersey's view on ADC at the time they were introduced and it is in the Public Interest that this is disclosed.​

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.  

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following:  

Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?  

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable.      

Further questions if above is a yes:   

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed? 

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the original decision was upheld and that Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

Article applied 

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.