In a separate matter to the substantive tax issue, it is reported in HMRC v Banerjee [2009] EWHC 1229 (Ch) that the taxpayer concerned sought to have the judgment anonymised. The court denied the application, obviously.

It all smells of something rather whiffy ?

In a case involving no sensitive personal or family related information, and when one might suppose that it would be rather “cool” to find yourself belonging to that very exclusive club of victorious section 198 claimants, what really inspired the doctor’s application ?

More precisely, given that there is not the slightest indication of any degree of anonymity being sought until after she knew had been successful in the High Court, what was the real root of her concerns given that, even when her solicitors declined to act in the application (and, fair dos, why would they when they were working for nothing and she did not have a snowball’s chance of success ) she still felt moved to retain Queen’s Counsel, at what must have been some considerable expense even for a relatively high earner.

Now, it might just be that she came to realise that her name would be attached to a noteworthy court case and that, being, in the court’s words, unduly sensitive, she came over all shy. But, whilst a registrar at the time of the tax claim, she had since become a hospital consultant and, well, let’s face it, consultant medics are not a breed typically known to be modest and retiring by nature.

Claims that she would be exposed to undue public attention really do not wash. And quite why the judge even bothered to generalise over the doctor’s current place of work seems odd when that information is readily available on the web, and presumably is made so available with the consent of the doctor.

For those of a suspicious disposition, paras 5 and 27 are strongly suggestive that pressure had been applied to Dr Banerjee but that she was unwilling, or unable, to substantiate as much in court.

It may be worth, here, drawing a comparison with Mr Dacadt. At the time of their original tax claims, both were employed as registrars under very similar contracts with two different hospital trusts. Both individuals won their cases at General Commissioners. The Revenue appealed both decisions; which they sought to join in the High Court, but Dr Banerjee refused for reasons unknown.

In contrast to Dr Banerjee, Mr Dacadt gave up after his initial success. He had no legal representation for the hearing of the Revenue’s appeal in the High Court, and did not even bother to represent himself despite having done so before the Generals. It is, therefore, not surprising that the High Court allowed the Revenue’s appeal.

Whereas Dr Banerjee did fight on, but yet sought anonymity with indecent haste only once she was successful. Might it be that both doctors had been warned of some manner of retribution if they contested the Revenue’s appeals, and that Dr Banerjee’s seeking of anonymity was an all too late attempt at protecting herself from the consequences of her unwillingness to accede ?