This case involved an application for judicial review, but the application to the Commissioner was an application for an injunction specifically disclosing the application. It is therefore not surprising that much of the relationship focused on the legal principles governing disclosure in public law proceedings and the duty of transparency. Furthermore, it must be noted that, without admitting any obligation to do so, the Controller had indeed disclosed the letter of application. It was evident that the reasons for issuing the notices were set out fully and fairly in the affidavits served on the applicant. It is therefore not surprising that the Commissioner concluded that they were sufficiently informed of the context and reasons for their challenge. Mutual Legal Assistance (Taxation) Act No. 18 of 2003  The Court accepts that the defendant`s argument of confidentiality was rejected on the facts of the case, since the notice had to contain the relevant details of the request under the 1986 Act. The Court also recognises that no such requirement exists under that legislation. A similar legal matrix was obtained in a subsequent and more recent Bermuda decision. In Bunge Limited v.
Finance Minister Bunge asked the Supreme Court of Bermuda to challenge the Department of Finance`s decision to issue the opinion on the disclosure of certain tax information through judicial review. Bunge argued that the notification was legally invalid and requested that it be rescinded on the ground that the underlying claim did not comply with the legal requirements of the TIEA and the 2005 Act. Country-by-country reporting under the Mutual Legal Assistance (Tax Matters) (Amendment) Act 2018 (Mutual Legal Assistance (Tax Matters) Act 2018 (as amended, the “Act”).  The gap between confidentiality and transparency in mutual legal assistance decision-making has been examined in a number of cases with varying results. In the Caribbean, the analysis begins with Lewis & Ness v. Secretary of the Treasury, a case decided by the Bermuda Court of Appeal under the U.S. – Bermuda Tax Convention Act of 1986 as the authority on the proposition that a taxpayer or requested party should be entitled to see the foreign government application on which the local notice is based. in the interests of fundamental fairness.
At paragraph 55 of the judgment, the Court of Appeal stated: “55. With respect to the second argument, we therefore conclude that, although the Act does not expressly require the Minister to submit the application to the person on whom a section 5 notice is served, the notice must contain the relevant details of the application, which means that it must detail the relevant parts of the application. including the information required in Division 4 and the definition of the information to be provided by the person on whom the notice is served.