In article <[log in to unmask]
ac.uk>, Temple, Angela <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Isn't section 29 (3) of the DPA relevant here. This says that personal data
>are
>exempt from non-disclosure provision if the disclosure is
>necessary for the "assessment or collection of tax or duty or of any imposition
>of a similar nature" and the application the non-disclosure
>provision would be likely to prejudice the "assessment or collection of tax..."
>
>This means that we could be obliged to disclosure for purposes of collecting
>council tax (without an individuals consent etc) but we must
>make a judgement about whether failure to comply with the request will
>prejudice
>the Council's ability to collect the tax
AIUI, the "Tax" referred to in 29(3) must be a *Central Government* Tax,
and Council Tax doesn't count. This is apparently a standard and
understood meaning of the word "tax" in Acts of Parliament, but arose
because of lobbying work on the RIP Act which itself brought the now
virtually obsolete provisions of 29(3) for gathering evidence into
sharper relief.
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|