Writing Resources
Tax Investigation Audit According to Okonkwo 2014 tax audit is usually triggered by suspicion of fraud evasion and related offences Bassey 2013 opined that tax audit is a level of enquiry aimed at determining what level of fraud or willful default or neglect a taxpayer perpetrated and to obtain evidence for possible prosecution of the culprit This implies that tax audit centers on determining some unrevealed sources of revenue pointing to gross non compliance or it may be about proof of underpayment and fraud Supporting this Oyedokun defined tax audit as an inspection of the financial affairs and taxpayers business records so as to ensure that law and regulation were maintained in the amount of tax reported This reflects that the so aim of tax audit is to ensure that laws and regulations regarding tax revenue are maintained by taxpayers with the aim of increasing the revenue pool of the government Okonkwo 2014 observed that tax audit is an essential compliance tool in most tax jurisdiction all over the word as it maximizes the expected tax revenue to the government both in developed and in developing countries Expanding this notion Kircher 2008 revealed that tax audit revolves examination of an individual or organization s tax report by the relevant tax authorities in order to ascertain compliance with applicable tax laws and regulations of state
Liversidge v Anderson is a case that concerns the relationship between the judiciary and the executive It is a landmark administrative case highlighting the extent of powers which the executive possesses in regard to the liberty of citizens The main issue is in regards to regulation 18B of the Defence General Regulations Act 1939 especially how the wording of the Act was interpreted by the courts In this presentation I will look at whether the judiciary had an obligation to stand against the executive the rule of law the separation of powers and whether the case has had an impact on cases in the future The facts of the case are relatively simple Regulation 18B of the Defence Regulation Act 1939 stated that if the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe any person to be of hostile origin or associations or to have been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm or in the preparation or instigation of such acts and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him he may make an order against that person directing that he be detained Mr Liversidge was imprisoned by the Secretary of State under regulation 18B without any evidence The Secretary of State refused to disclose documents relating to Mr Liversidge s arrest as they were confidential and of national security In the House of Lords the majority judgment held that the detention was lawful due to how the Act could be interpreted However the fifth judge in the case Lord Atkin disagreed and gave a dissenting judgment One of the main issues in Liversidge v Anderson is the interpretation of the phrase if the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe It needed to be established whether this statement was subject to an objective or subjective standard
