FS50245725: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision" |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50245725.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50245725.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
Latest revision as of 22:40, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50245725
- Date: 15 December 2009
- Public Authority: HM Treasury
- Summary: The complainant requested copies of all submissions to ministers in relation to the taxation of non-domiciled residents for the period 1 January 2003 to 27 June 2007. The public authority disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder under the exemptions provided by sections 29(1)(a) (prejudice to the economy), 29(1)(b) (prejudice to the financial interests of any UK administration), 35(1)(a) (information relating to the formulation or development of government policy) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). In relation to the majority of the information requested, the Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours the maintenance of this exemption. In relation to the majority of the content of one part of this information, the Commissioner finds that none of the exemptions cited are engaged and that the public authority breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) in refusing to disclose this information. The public authority is now required to disclose this information to the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached section 17(1)(c) of the Act in failing to provide an adequate explanation as to why the exemptions cited were believed to be engaged.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 29 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
