Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Daffurn: ChD 24 Jun 1993

A farmer, anticipating retirement, applied for and obtained planning permission for the development of land on his farm. He ran down the farming on that land, and applied for relief upon retirement.
Held: Retirement relief should be denied to him, since at the time of his retirement, the land no longer formed part of the farm he was running.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Sep-1993, Times 24-Jun-1993, Ind Summary 12-Jul-1993

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.84664

Hinchcliffe (Inspector of Taxes) v Crabtree: CA 1971

The taxpayer’s shareholding was to be sold in a take-over. A sale was substantially agreed, but not completed for several months. The base value of the shares fell to be set by the quoted price at the start of the tax year. The take-over had not been announced, and the taxpayer argued that the quoted price of the shares did not reflect the true value. The Inland Revenue appealed a finding that the impending take-over constituted an exceptional circumstance so that the quoted price could be adjusted upward reducing the chargeable gain.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The fact that the price set by the stock exchange was founded upon a mistake was not an exceptional circumstance within the Act so as to allow any other price to be used.

Citations:

[1971] 2 All ER 104

Statutes:

Finance Act 1965 44(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCrabtree v Hinchcliffe (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 5-Dec-1969
The taxpayer owned shares in his own company, and was to sell them in a take-over. The sale was delayed. The Act required the base value to be set at the beginning of the tax year, and the chargeable gain was the increase in price when the sale . .

Cited by:

Appealed toCrabtree v Hinchcliffe (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 5-Dec-1969
The taxpayer owned shares in his own company, and was to sell them in a take-over. The sale was delayed. The Act required the base value to be set at the beginning of the tax year, and the chargeable gain was the increase in price when the sale . .
Appeal fromCrabtree v Hinchcliffe (Inspector of Taxes) HL 27-Oct-1971
The taxpayer’s shareholding in his quoted company was to be sold. A sale was substantially agreed, but not completed for several months. Between times came the beginning of the tax year. The Act provided that, for quoted shares, save in special . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.215879

HM Revenue and Customs v The Executors of Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: CA 19 Mar 2014

Whether a valuable painting which had increased very substantially in value was a ‘wasting asset with a predictable life not exceeding 50 years’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rimer

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 278, [2014] STI 1560, [2014] BTC 12, [2014] 1 WLR 3902, [2014] WTLR 791, [2014] STC 1100, [2014] 3 All ER 50

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.522604

Jarmin (Inspector of Taxes) v Rawlings: ChD 13 Dec 1994

Retirement relief was to be given on the sale of a milking parlour and yard when accompanied by a cessation of the trade involving those assets.

Citations:

Ind Summary 23-Jan-1995, Gazette 11-Jan-1995, Times 13-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82496

Cooper v Billingham (Inspector of Taxes); Fisher v Edwards (Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Jul 2001

The act provided that any payment not chargeable to income tax was to be treated as a capital payment. The settlor had created an off-shore trust in which he retained a determinable life interest, and had received unsecured and interest free loans from the trustees. The loans were repayable on demand, and it was argued that accordingly, the value actually conferred was negligible. It was held that the section created one simple answer to a huge variety of possible situations. Though artificial and not without difficulties, the construction that he had received capital payments stood, and they were taxable accordingly.

Judges:

Aldous, Walker, Parker LJJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1041

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 87(2) 97(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79481

Moore v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Aug 2013

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – disposal of a residential property after 8 months of occupation – whether the property had been the appellant’s residence – whether his occupation of the property had the necessary degree of permanence, continuity or expectation of continuity – held on the evidence that it did not – sections 222 and 223 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 not applicable – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 433 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 222 223

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.515215

Jeremy Rice v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Jan 2014

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – disposal of property used in used car business- entrepreneur’s relief – section 169I Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992- whether cessation of trade – whether disposal within three years of cessation -yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 132 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.521706

Cooper v Billingham (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 10 Feb 2000

Where a UK resident created an offshore settlement under which he was a member of the class of potential beneficiaries, and the trust made loans to him which did not carry interest and where no request was in fact made for repayment over long periods, the loan amounted to a capital payment under the act as a ‘transfer of an asset and the conferring of any other benefit’ and so was chargeable to Capital Gains Tax.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Feb-2000, Times 25-Feb-2000

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 87, 97

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79479

Fallon v Fellows (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 2001

The court considered whether a scheme was for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation in a capital gains tax context. Citing South African Supply: ‘In the context I think it is clear that when the learned judge referred to the persons carrying on an undertaking, he had in mind the shareholders who were carrying it on through a corporate body. He was referring to persons carrying on an undertaking in the sense of owning it, not in the sense of being involved in the management and conduct of the business operations. The basic concept is that one starts with a group of shareholders who own a business through one corporate vehicle and one ends with the same group of shareholders or substantially the same group of shareholders, who own the same business or substantially the same business still through a corporate vehicle, but now through a different corporate vehicle.’

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

[2001] STC 1409

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRe South African Supply and Cold Storage Co 1904
The court had to construe the words ‘reconstruction or amalgamation’ in the memorandum of association of a company: ‘The only question I have to decide is whether, in the case of each of these two companies, there has or has not been a winding-up . .
CitedHooper v Western Counties and South Wales Telephone Co Ltd 1892
The court placed a restrictive meaning on the idea of a company reconstruction. The new company is to consist of the old shareholders. . .
CitedBrooklands Selangor Holdings Limited v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 1970
The court had to consider whether the arrangments before it amounted to a reconstruction for stamp duty purposes: ‘I will deal first with the question whether those transactions amounted to a reconstruction. In ordinary speech the word . .

Cited by:

CitedMytravel Group Plc, Re Companies Act 1985 ChD 24-Nov-2004
The company sought approval of a proposed reconstruction under the section.
Held: Approval could not be given. To count as a reconstruction two principal qualities were required. The business carried on should be the same or similar, and those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220252

Burca v Parkinson: ChD 2001

An assignment of the consideration due under a contract does not alter the capital gains tax liability of the person making the disposal.

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

[2001] STC 1298

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJerome v Kelly (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 13-May-2004
In 1987, trustees holding land for various beneficiaries in undivided shares entered into a contract to sell it to a purchaser. In 1989 Mr and Mrs Jerome, who were absolutely entitled to interests in the land, assigned part of their beneficial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.196891

Plumbly and others (Representatives of the Estate of S C Harbour Deceased) and Spencer (HM Inspector of Taxes): CA 17 Jun 1999

Retirement tax relief could be claimed by an individual on land owned through a limited company. There was no explicit requirement for direct ownership at the time of cessation. Here farmed land was sold by a limited company at the time of the owner’s retirement, but although no shares were sold, but the sale remained an ‘associated sale of assets.’

Citations:

Gazette 30-Jun-1999, Times 05-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1614

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 70(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromPlumbly and Others v Spencer (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 4-Mar-1997
Retirement relief is restricted to assets actually used within a family business. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPlumbly and Others v Spencer (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 4-Mar-1997
Retirement relief is restricted to assets actually used within a family business. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.146529

Steibelt (Inspector of Taxes) v Paling: CA 19 May 1999

Where the Board of Inland Revenue had refused to extend the time limit to allow re-investment of funds realised, it was not open to the General Commissioners to overrule that decision on appeal.

Citations:

Times 19-May-1999, Gazette 19-May-1999

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 152

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89535

Melville and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 27 Jun 2000

A settlor created a common form discretionary trust save only that it included a right to require, after 90 days, the trustees to revest the settled fund in the settlor. A chargeable transfer was calculated at the reduction in value of his estate after the transfer. The clause meant that the sums remained ‘rights and interests of any description’ belonging to the settlor. The Revenue had not established that the statutory definition of property should not apply.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-2000, Gazette 29-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984

Cited by:

Appeal fromMelville and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 31-Jul-2001
The taxpayer, to minimize his tax, put assets into a discretionary trust. The trust included the right for him to give 90 days notice requiring the assets to be transferred to him absolutely. He successfully argued that the assets were no longer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83617

Dunlop International Ag v Pardoe (Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Oct 1999

Where a company ceased to be resident in the UK, and there was deemed as a result to be a transfer of shares between companies within the group, that transfer gave rise to a chargeable gain which was chargeable to Corporation Tax.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 178

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80173

Inland Revenue v Burmah Oil Co Ltd: HL 1982

A series of circular payments which left the taxpayer company in exactly the same financial position as before was not regarded as giving rise to a ‘loss’ within the meaning of the legislation. The ratio of the Ramsay decision was that a loss which comes and goes as part of a pre-planned, single continuous operation ‘is not such a loss (or gain) as the legislation is dealing with’

Judges:

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Citations:

1982 SC (HL) 114

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .

Cited by:

CitedBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.220501

Crabtree v Hinchcliffe (Inspector of Taxes): HL 27 Oct 1971

The taxpayer’s shareholding in his quoted company was to be sold. A sale was substantially agreed, but not completed for several months. Between times came the beginning of the tax year. The Act provided that, for quoted shares, save in special circumstances, the base value of the shares was to be the quoted price at the start of the tax year. The taxpayer argued that that price had been set in ignorance of the take-over, and therefore substantially undervalued the shares, and that that error was a special circumstance.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal failed. The special circumstances had to apply at the time in issue, the start of the tax year. The Special Commissioners’ findings of fact were not set out satisfactorily, and did not state whether an announcement should have been made before the start of the tax year. Nevertheless, the negotiations had not at that date reached a stage at which an announcement would have been correct, and the quoted price remained appropriate. Board members of companies will often have price sensitive information which they cannot yet disclose. That does not mean that the public market in the shares is a false market. The Revenue’s interpretation of special circumstances was unnecesarily narrow, but this did not affect the outcome. Viscount Dilhorne: ‘For circumstances to be special must be exceptional, abnormal, or unusual and the mere fact that directors have knowledge which would affect the prices quoted if made public cannot, in my view, be regarded as an unusual circumstance.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Donovan, Lord Pearson

Citations:

[1971] 3 WLR 821, [1971] 3 All ER 967, (1971) 47 Tax Cases 419

Statutes:

Finance Act 1965 44(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHinchcliffe (Inspector of Taxes) v Crabtree CA 1971
The taxpayer’s shareholding was to be sold in a take-over. A sale was substantially agreed, but not completed for several months. The base value of the shares fell to be set by the quoted price at the start of the tax year. The take-over had not . .
CitedLynall v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 2-Jan-1971
The House was asked about the fixing of ‘price . . in the open market’ of a parcel of shares held in a private company. The Finance Act 1894 provided a method of valuation of property for estate duty purposes by reference to what the property would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.215878

Lynall v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 2 Jan 1971

The House was asked about the fixing of ‘price . . in the open market’ of a parcel of shares held in a private company. The Finance Act 1894 provided a method of valuation of property for estate duty purposes by reference to what the property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of death. Confidentially there was a flotation in contemplation, but this was not public knowledge. The possibility of flotation would increase the value of the shares. The Revenue contended that the possibility should be taken into account.
Held: The hypothetical purchaser should not be treated as having knowledge of such information. Under section 160, the basis of valuation is what would have been paid for the subject property, in the open market, by a willing purchaser from a willing seller
Lord Reid said: ‘We must decide what the highest bidder would have offered in the hypothetical sale in the open market, which the Act requires us to imagine took place at the time of Mrs. Lynall’s death. The sum which any bidder will offer must depend on what he knows (or thinks he knows) about the property for which he bids. The decision of this case turns on the question what knowledge the hypothetical bidders must be supposed to have had about the affairs of Linread. One solution would be that they must be supposed to have been omniscient. But we have to consider what would in fact have happened if this imaginary sale had taken place, or at least – if we are looking for a general rule – what would happen in the event of a sale of this kind taking place. One thing which would not happen would be that the bidders would be omniscient. They would derive their knowledge from facts made available to them by the shareholder exposing the shares for sale. We must suppose that, being a willing seller and an honest man he would give as much information as he was entitled to give. If he was not a director he would give the information which he could get as a shareholder. If he was a director and had confidential information, he could not disclose that information without the consent of the board of directors.
The respondents’ figure of andpound;4 10s. per share can only be justified if it must be supposed that these reports would have been made known to all genuine potential buyers, or at least to accountants nominated by them. That could only have been done with the consent of Linread’s board of directors. They were under no legal obligation to make any confidential information available. Circumstances vary so much that I have some difficulty in seeing how we could lay down any general rule that directors must be supposed to have done something which they were not obliged to do. The farthest we could possibly go would be to hold that directors must be deemed to have done what all reasonable directors would do. Then it might be reasonable to say that they would disclose information provided that its disclosure could not possibly prejudice the interests of the company. But that would not be sufficient to enable the respondents to succeed.’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1971] 3 All ER 914, [1972] AC 680

Statutes:

Finance Act 1894

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromIn re Lynall deceased CA 1968
Harman LJ said: ‘The sale envisaged by the section is, as is agreed, not a real but a hypothetical sale, and must be taken to be a sale between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser: see, for instance, the speech of Lord Guest in In re Sutherland . .

Cited by:

CitedCrabtree v Hinchcliffe (Inspector of Taxes) HL 27-Oct-1971
The taxpayer’s shareholding in his quoted company was to be sold. A sale was substantially agreed, but not completed for several months. Between times came the beginning of the tax year. The Act provided that, for quoted shares, save in special . .
CitedGrays Timber Products Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 3-Feb-2010
An assessment to income tax had been raised after the employee resold shares in the company issued through the employees’ share scheme at a price which the Revenue said was above the share value. The company appealed against a finding that tax was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.215902

Mangin v Commissioner of Inland Revenue: PC 1971

Lord Donovan considered the rules for interpretation of taxation statutes and said: ‘Thirdly, the object of the construction of a statute being to ascertain the will of the legislature it may be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was intended. If therefore a literal interpretation would produce such a result, and the language admits of an interpretation which would avoid it, then such an interpretation may be adopted.’

Judges:

Lord Donovan

Citations:

[1971] AC 739

Statutes:

Finance Act 1965

Cited by:

CitedHarding v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Lapsed Currency conversion option lost status
The taxpayer appealed his assessment to Capital Gains Tax on his redemption of loan notes arising following the sale of his computer company. He said that they were qualifying corporate bonds. The question was whether a security in which a currency . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax, Scotland

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.277168

Inland Revenue v Walker: HL 3 Dec 1914

A tenement was valued, under the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, as at 30th April 1909, the original total value pounds 400, the original assessable site value pounds 20, pounds 380 being the deduction made for buildings. In June 1911 the property was sold by a widow to her brother-in-law, a man up in years, who had long lived and carried on a draper’s business there. The price paid was pounds 650. Nothing admittedly had occurred calculated to affect the value of the buildings or the site since April 1909. The Inland Revenue claimed increment value duty on pounds 250, viz., on the pounds 650 less the pounds 380 which had been allowed for buildings in the original valuation, and less pounds 20, the original assessable site value. A referee being of opinion that the property had not altered in value since April 1909, but that the figures then taken were too low, made a new valuation, the total value pounds 470, the deduction for buildings pounds 400, the assessable site value pounds 70. As regarded the price obtained, he, purporting to act under section 25 4 ( d), deducted pounds 180, which he stated must be attributed to some personal consideration, bringing out the occasional site value at pounds 70.
Held (1) that the case being ruled by the English case of Lumsden v. Inland Revenue (v. infra) the deduction for buildings on the occasion of sale was pounds 400, the ‘like deductions’ in section 2 (2) ( a) meaning deductions ascertained by the same method as in the original valuation- i.e., by obtaining a gross value and total value by valuation and not by reference merely to the purchase price, which might or might not correspond with open market value; and (2) that no deduction for personal matters fell to be made, as that did not arise on the facts, the referee merely surmising, not finding as a fact, that part of the purchase price was due to personal matters. Increment value duty was consequently due on pounds 230, i.e., on pounds 650, less pounds 400 for buildings, and less pounds 20, the original assessable site value.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker, Lord Sumner, and Lord Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 151

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620734

Bradshaw and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jul 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other – – non-resident CGT return – penalty of pounds 100 for failure to file return within 30 days of completion of house sale – whether error in notice of assessment as to period in paragraph 18(1)(c) Schedule 55 FA 2009 makes assessment invalid: no, s 114(1) TMA applies – whether date of disposal correctly shown on return: no – whether HMRC have shown penalty due: yes – whether reliance on third party reasonable excuse: yes – whether ignorance of law reasonable excuse: yes, following Perrin in Upper Tribunal – whether UK/Canada DTA applies – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 368 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619367

Pidcock v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jul 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other – Capital Gains Tax – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax returns – whether reasonable excuse – whether ignorance of law an excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 376 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619377

Scowcroft v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jun 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : CAPITAL GAINS TAX – non-resident CGT return – penalty of pounds 100 for failure to file return within 30 days of completion of house sale – whether error in notice of assessment as to period in paragraph 18(1)(c) Schedule 55 FA 2009 makes assessment invalid: no, s 114(1) TMA applies – whether HMRC have shown penalty due: yes – whether reliance on third party reasonable excuse: yes – whether ignorance of law reasonable excuse: yes, following Perrin in Upper Tribunal – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 295 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619360

Haworth, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: Admn 23 May 2018

The claimant challenged the decisions of the Commissioners to issue him in 2016 with a follower notice and an accelerated payment notice in relation to gains arising to the trustees of a settlement from the disposal of assets during the 2000-2001 assessment year.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1271 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618107

Davies v The Commissioners for Hm Revenue and Customs: UTTC 30 Apr 2018

Capital Gains Tax – Unapproved Employee Share Options – grantor having discretion on exercise of option to satisfy option holder’s entitlement either by transfer of shares or payment of cash – whether s 144ZA TCGA disapplies the market value rule in s 17(1) TCGA

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 130 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616365

Plumbly and Others v Spencer (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 4 Mar 1997

Retirement relief is restricted to assets actually used within a family business.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Mar-1997, Times 04-Mar-1997

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 69(2)(b) 70(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromPlumbly and others (Representatives of the Estate of S C Harbour Deceased) and Spencer (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 17-Jun-1999
Retirement tax relief could be claimed by an individual on land owned through a limited company. There was no explicit requirement for direct ownership at the time of cessation. Here farmed land was sold by a limited company at the time of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPlumbly and others (Representatives of the Estate of S C Harbour Deceased) and Spencer (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 17-Jun-1999
Retirement tax relief could be claimed by an individual on land owned through a limited company. There was no explicit requirement for direct ownership at the time of cessation. Here farmed land was sold by a limited company at the time of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.84776

Hart v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Apr 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Late Filing of Non-Resident Capital Gains Tax Returns – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax returns – whether reasonable excuse – whether ignorance of law an excuse – no – whether failure by tax adviser to alert taxpayer of need to make return an excuse – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 207 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609275

Schuldenfrei v Hilton (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes): CA 16 Jul 1999

Where an inspector issued an assessment to tax, but mistakenly completed it to say that no tax was payable, and the taxpayer did nothing to indicate reliance upon it, there was no agreement between the taxpayer and the inspector such as would prevent the collector of taxes withdrawing and amending the assessment.

Citations:

Times 12-Aug-1999, Gazette 02-Sep-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1869

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSchuldenfrei v Hilton (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Feb-1998
A taxpayer’s inactive acquiescence in an inspector’s mistaken acceptance did not create an agreement which could restrain correction of the error. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toSchuldenfrei v Hilton (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Feb-1998
A taxpayer’s inactive acquiescence in an inspector’s mistaken acceptance did not create an agreement which could restrain correction of the error. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.146784

Watton (Inspector of Taxes) v Tippett: CA 27 Jun 1997

Proceeds of the sale of part of a business which had been invested back into the business cannot be rolled over into the acquisition cost of remainder.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-1997, [1997] STC 893

Statutes:

Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 115

Citing:

Appeal fromWatton (Inspector of Taxes) v Tippett ChD 21-Dec-1995
Roll-over relief was not available for the disposal of part only of a commercial asset. . .

Cited by:

CitedWardhaugh (Inspector of Taxes) v Penrith Rugby Union Football Club ChD 10-May-2002
The taxpayer had accepted a grant toward the building of a new club house. They sought rollover relief on the proceeds of sale of the former club house. The inspector sought to restrict the claim to exclude the benefit of the grant.
Held: The . .
Appealed toWatton (Inspector of Taxes) v Tippett ChD 21-Dec-1995
Roll-over relief was not available for the disposal of part only of a commercial asset. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90328

Hitch and Others v Stone (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 7 Apr 1999

A tax avoidance scheme was effective despite being complex and artificial. The documents affected third party rights in potential development land, and it was impossible to conclude it was a sham.

Citations:

Times 07-Apr-1999

Cited by:

Appeal fromRoger Stone (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Richard Henry Hitch; Thomas Henry Hitch and Ian Geoffrey Handy CA 26-Jan-2001
The essence of whether a deed was a sham, was whether the deed proclaimed one set of intentions, but the parties acted out another. The deeds in this case were capable of being seen as a sham as respects one or more deeds in the combination of . .
Appeal fromStone (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Hitch and others CA 26-Jan-2001
As an exception to the general rule, it is not invariably necessary to show, in relation to multi party transactions, that every party to it knew it was a sham.
Arden LJ said: ‘Third, the fact that the act or document is uncommercial, or even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81395

Goodwin v Curtis (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 14 Aug 1996

Capital Gains Tax relief for a private residence was lost where no permanent occupation was established.

Citations:

Times 14-Aug-1996

Statutes:

Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 101

Cited by:

Appeal fromGoodwin v Curtis (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 18-Feb-1998
The occupation of a property as an ‘own or main residence’ is a question of fact and degree and ordinary usage. In this case, five weeks occupation by the taxpayer was insufficient to establish the exemption. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80920

De Rothschild v Lawrenson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 7 Dec 1993

A UK resident settlor was liable for tax on gains in a non-resident trust.

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1993

Statutes:

Finance Act 1981 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromDe Rothschild v Lawrenson (Inspector of Taxes) CA 22-May-1995
A UK Settlor/beneficiary was liable to be taxed on distribution gains from an offshore trust. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79855

Hashmi and Others v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Computation): FTTTx 8 Jan 2018

FTTTx Capital Gains Tax – discovery assessments – penalties – whether or not there was a chargeable capital gain in 2008/2009 – yes – whether or not the assessments should be reduced further than as already amended – no – whether or not the inaccuracies were deliberate but not concealed – yes – whether or not the disclosure was prompted – yes – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 12 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602934

Aslam v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 4 Dec 2017

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Appeal against assessment and penalty – Whether expenditure incurred – Whether expenditure for enhancing the value of or defending title to or rights over the asset (s 38 TCGA)

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 860 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600991

Saunders v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Disposal): FTTTx 18 Oct 2017

Capital Gains Tax – TMA 1970 s 12ZB Non-resident CGT return – Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 – fixed penalties for late filing of self-assessment return – non-resident Appellant failed to report capital gain within 30 days of disposal – Appellant unaware of obligation introduced by Finance Act 2015 – whether reasonable excuse – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] STI 95, [2018] SFTD 487, [2017] UKFTT 765 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598803

Chohan and Another v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other): FTTTx 24 Oct 2017

CAPITAL GAINS TAX and INCOME TAX – Notice issued under para 1 Sch 36 FA 2008 for information and documents – initial penalty for failure to comply – daily penalties for failure to comply – whether penalties validly issued – whether reasonable excuse for failure to comply – whether compliance before end of daily penalty period – initial penalty quashed – daily penalties reduced.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 779 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598768

McGreevy v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Sep 2017

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other – CAPITAL GAINS TAX – non-resident CGT return – penalties of Apounds 1,600 for failure to file return within 30 days of completion of house sale – whether disposal in 2015-16: not proved, so penalties not due – alternatively, whether assessment met requirements of paragraph 18 Schedule 55 FA 2009: no, but s 118 TMA applies – whether paragraph 4 Schedule 55 penalties properly imposed: no, Donaldson applies and no paragraph 4(1)(b) HMRC decision – whether reasonable excuse: yes – whether special circumstances decision by HMRC flawed: yes – decision that there were special circumstances substituted – penalties cancelled.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 690 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.598980

Longson v Baker (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 5 Dec 2000

The test of whether land attached to a private dwelling in excess of a half hectare, was required for the reasonable enjoyment of the property was an objective one. The individual circumstances and requirements of the taxpayer should not affect the assessment. In this case, although the residence included stabling, land used for the horses stabled was not to be included. The keeping of horses was not an essential part of the use of the house as a residence.

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-2000, Gazette 18-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 222

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromLongson v Baker (Inspector of Taxes) SCIT 8-May-2000
SCIT CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Private residence exemption – Whether gain on sale of house exempt – Extent of ‘the permitted area’ – Section 222 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLongson v HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Mar-2001
The taxpayer disposed of his farmhouse, and sought exemption from Capital Gains Tax under sections 101 and 102 of the 1989 Act. The Revenue said it had not been his only or main residence. Contracts had been exchanged for its purchase in 1983, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.83186

Ramsay v HMRC: UTTC 8 May 2013

UTTC CAPITAL GAINS TAX – s 162 TCGA – roll-over relief on transfer of a business as a going concern to a company in exchange for shares – whether activities of appellant in relation to a property divided into let flats amounted to a business – whether approach of First-tier Tribunal was correct in law

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 226 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.510296

Fim Santander Top 25 Euro Fi (Articles 63 Tfeu And 65 TFEU): ECJ 10 May 2012

ECJ Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU – Undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS) – Different treatment of dividends paid to non-resident UCITS, subject to withholding tax, and dividends paid to resident UCITS, not subject to such tax – Whether it is necessary, for the purpose of determining whether the national measure is in conformity with the free movement of capital, to take account of the situation of shareholders – No such need

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-338/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:286

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OrderFIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi (Articles 63 Tfeu And 65 TFEU) C-338/11 ECJ 10-May-2012
ECJ 1 The references for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU concerning the difference in tax treatment between non-resident and resident collective investment undertakings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584359

Hargreaves v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 8 Sep 2014

Procedure – preliminary issue – Capital Gains Tax – appeal against discovery assessment on basis both that HMRC not competent to make assessment and that taxpayer not in fact resident during year of assessment – whether competence of HMRC to make discovery assessment should be heard as a preliminary issue – s. 29 Taxes Management Act 1970

Citations:

[2014] UKUT 395 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.537624

Quinn (Insepctor of Taxes) v Cooper: ChD 20 Jul 1998

Where there were losses on the sale of BES shares purchased before 1986, they were valued by applying indexation allowance to the value calculated as acquisition cost less allowable deductions.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.85097

Blackwell v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 6 Apr 2017

The court was asked whether a taxpayer may, in computing the gain accruing to him on the disposal of shares, bring into account by way of deduction expenditure incurred by him in buying his release from a personal contractual obligation to a third party restrictive of his ability to vote or sell those shares.

Judges:

Longmore, Patten, Briggs LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 232

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax, Company

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581427

BNP Paribas And BNL v Commission: ECJ 3 Mar 2011

(Order) Intervention

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-452/10 – P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See AlsoBNP Paribas And BNL v Commission ECJ 21-Jun-2012
ECJ Appeals – State aid – Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes – Banking sector – Taxation of capital gains – Substitute tax – Selectivity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.655415

Phillips v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Relief On Disposal of Private Residence): FTTTx 30 Sep 2020

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – relief on disposal of private residence – extent of permitted area – whether the permitted area exceeded 0.5 of a hectare – s.222(3) Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 381 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 222(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.655315

W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 12 Mar 1981

The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature of the transactions could be seen by looking at them all together, then that should be done. If the composite transaction produced neither a gain nor a loss, it was a nullity. The schemes should be ignored as artificial and fiscally ineffective. The language of a taxing statute will often have to be given a wide practical meaning to allow the court to have regard to the whole of a series of transactions which were intended to have a commercial unity. Lord Wilberforce (on the interpretation of taxation statutes) ‘What are ‘clear words’ is to be ascertained upon normal principles: these do not confine the courts to literal interpretation. There may, indeed should, be considered the context and scheme of the relevant Act as a whole, and its purpose may, indeed should, be regarded.’ As to the construction of composite transactions: ‘It is the task of the court to ascertain the legal nature of any transaction to which it is sought to attach a tax or a tax consequence and if that emerges from a series or combination of transactions, intended to operate as such, it is that series or combination which may be regarded.’ and ‘The capital gains tax was created to operate in the real world, not that of make-belief . . . To say that a loss (or gain) which appears to arise at one stage in an indivisible process, and which is intended to be and is cancelled out by a later stage, so that at the end of what was bought as, and planned as, a single continuous operation, there is not such a loss (or gain) as the legislation is dealing with, is in my opinion well and indeed essentially within the judicial function.’

Judges:

Wilberforce, Fraser of Tullybelton, Russell of Killowen, Roskill, Bridge of Harwich LL

Citations:

[1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedChinn v Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) HL 11-Dec-1980
The House considered the meaning of the word ‘bounty’ in an income tax context, where it had been used by the courts: ‘My Lords, I would venture to point out that the word ‘bounty’ appears nowhere in the statute. It is a judicial gloss upon the . .
AppliedInland Revenue Commissioners v Plummer HL 1-Nov-1979
Although transactions were integrated as part of a preconceived scheme which was commercially marketed and that had no other conceivable purpose than that of saving surtax, the construction of the statute compelled the acceptance of a fiscal result . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster HL 7-May-1935
The Duke’s gardener was paid weekly, but to reduce tax, his solicitors drew up a deed in which it was said that the earnings were not really wages, but were an annual payment payable by weekly instalments.
Held: To find out what the true . .

Cited by:

CitedDTE Financial Services Ltd v Wilson (Inspector of Taxes) CA 24-May-2001
A scheme by which an employer paid bonuses to senior staff by purchasing contingent reversionary interests in an overseas trust, and then assigning them to the staff without admitting liability for income tax or national insurance contributions when . .
AppliedMoodie v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another and similar HL 7-Apr-1993
A scheme was devised to sell annuities to charities. They then used the capital sum paid to purchase promissory notes from the charity, which were in turn used to secure annuity payments.
Held: The scheme was entirely self cancelling and void. . .
CitedGriffin v Citibank Investments Ltd ChD 14-Nov-2000
Where there existed properly constituted documents recording a contract, the court could not go behind them to discover the real transaction. The rules in Ramsay is not a special set of principles restricted to issues in determining the legal effect . .
CitedMcNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd CA 26-Oct-1998
Cross loans were made between an investment company and pension schemes. The overall effect was to create payments which could be set off against Corporation Tax. They were not a pre-ordained series of transactions where the underlying loans were . .
CitedBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 22-Jul-2002
The taxpayer sought to claim for capital allowances of andpound;91 million for gas pipelines. The claimant had provided the equipment through a leasing scheme.
Held: The leases were unusual, but did not appear to be merely part of a tax . .
CitedMacDonald (Inspector of Taxes) v Dextra Accessories Ltd and Others ChD 16-Apr-2003
The inspector sought to disallow charging to current tax period payments made by the employer to an employee benefit trust.
Held: The payments were not made and held by the trustees ‘with a view to becoming relevant emoluments’ within the . .
ExplainedMacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .
CitedEnsign Tankers (Leasing) Ltd v Stokes (Inspector of Taxes) HL 6-May-1992
The appellants entered into partnerships with a film production company. By doing so they intended to make available to themselves first year allowances on the capital expenditure incurred. Loan agreements protected them from any eventual loss.
CitedBMBF (No 24) Limited v the Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 6-Nov-2003
The taxpayer, a non-resident, operated a sale and lease back scheme of machinery to be used in its business within the UK. There had been a chain of leases.
Held: The court had first to identify the ‘relevant lease’. It was the head lease . .
CitedCommissioner of Inland Revenue v Auckland Harbour Board PC 24-Jan-2001
PC (New Zealand) The respondent had created two trusts. The issue was how their income was to be treated for income tax.
Held: They had received no consideration. It was said that the transfers had been . .
CitedCraven v White HL 1988
The inland revenue claimed that several transactions had been arranged for the predominant purpose of obtaining a tax advantage, and that accordingly they should be disregarded. Lord Oliver: ‘[T]he transactions which, in each appeal, the Inland . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Scottish Provident Institution HL 25-Nov-2004
The parties anticipated a change in the system for taxing gains on options to buy or sell bonds and government securities. An option would be purchased before the change and exercised after the change to create losses which could be set off against . .
CitedCommissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian HL 21-May-1997
Steps which had been inserted into a commercial transaction, but which had no purpose other than the saving of tax are to be disregarded when assessing the tax effect of the scheme. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to . .
CitedBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
ExplainedInland Revenue v Burmah Oil Co Ltd HL 1982
A series of circular payments which left the taxpayer company in exactly the same financial position as before was not regarded as giving rise to a ‘loss’ within the meaning of the legislation. The ratio of the Ramsay decision was that a loss which . .
RestatedCollector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd 4-Dec-2003
(Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal) The court was asked as to the accounting treatment of interests incurred in the development for the purpose of generating the profits, and therefore whether the relevant Ordinance prohibited the capitalisation of . .
ExtendedFurniss (Inspector of Taxes) v Dawson HL 9-Feb-1983
The transfer of shares to a subsidiary as part of a planned scheme immediately to transfer them to an outside purchaser was regarded as a taxable disposition to the outside purchaser rather than an exempt transfer to a group company. In defined . .
CitedIngram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
CitedIngram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .
CitedGreenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise HL 12-May-2005
Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for . .
CitedBelvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA 24-Oct-1995
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
CitedHarding v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Lapsed Currency conversion option lost status
The taxpayer appealed his assessment to Capital Gains Tax on his redemption of loan notes arising following the sale of his computer company. He said that they were qualifying corporate bonds. The question was whether a security in which a currency . .
CitedScottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Jul-2011
The taxpayer insurance company had transferred sums from accounts designated as Capital Reserves. The Revenue said that these were properly part of the profit and loss accounts for the respective tax years, and chargeable receipts.
Held: The . .
CitedCampbell v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCIT 6-Jul-2004
SCIT INCOME TAX – Anti-Avoidance – Relevant discounted security – Loss on gift to wife – Subscription for security and gift part of scheme to produce loss – Avoidance not the Appellant’s sole purpose in . .
CitedCraven (IOT) v White (Stephen); Inland Revenue Commissioners v Bowater Property Developments HL 1989
In Craven, the taxpayers owned shares in Q Ltd. In early 1976 they began to negotiate with C Ltd for a merger of the two companies and steps were taken to establish an Isle of Man holding company to act as a vehicle for the taxpayers’ shares should . .
CitedJohn Mander Pension Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jul-2015
The pension scheme had been approved, but that approval later withdraw. HMRC issued assessment for the years in which it had been approved. The taxpayer argued that such assessments applied to the date with effect from which the approval is . .
CitedShop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs SC 17-Feb-2016
The Court considered the interpretation of the sections which applied corporation tax to post-cessation receipts. Companies had received from the Inland Revenue substantial repayments of VAT together with interest. There had been reorganisations of . .
CitedUBS Ag and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 9-Mar-2016
UBS AG devised an employee bonus scheme to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the 2003 Act, with the sole purpose other than tax avoidance, and such consequential advantages as would flow from tax avoidance. Several pre-ordained steps . .
CitedRFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland SC 5-Jul-2017
The Court was asked whether an employee’s remuneration is taxable as his or her emoluments or earnings when it is paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.
Held: The . .
CitedS Franses Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd SC 5-Dec-2018
The question which arises on this appeal is whether it is open to the landlord to oppose the grant of a new business tenancy if the works which he says that he intends to carry out have no purpose other than to get rid of the tenant and would not be . .
CitedHancock and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 22-May-2019
The taxpayers sold their shares in return for loan notes in the form of mixed qualifying (QCB) and non qualifying corporate bonds (Non-QCB) within section 115 of the 1992 Act. Gains on the disposal of QCB would be exempt from CGT. These were then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management

Leading Case

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.181330

Hancock and Another v Revenue and Customs: SC 22 May 2019

The taxpayers sold their shares in return for loan notes in the form of mixed qualifying (QCB) and non qualifying corporate bonds (Non-QCB) within section 115 of the 1992 Act. Gains on the disposal of QCB would be exempt from CGT. These were then converted to QCBs. The court was asked as to their chargeability on disposal and whether this was a single or two separate conversions.
Held: The taxpayers’ appeal was dismissed.
‘Plainly, section 116(1)(b) contemplates the possibility of a single transaction which involves a pre-conversion holding of both QCBs and non-QCBs, and this, coupled with the fact that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation renders the words ‘or include’ appearing in section 116(1)(b) otiose are powerful arguments in support of the appellants’ construction. . . However, the appellants’ interpretation result would be inexplicable in terms of the policy expressed in these provisions, which is to enable all relevant reorganisations to benefit from the same rollover relief. Taxpayers could avoid those provisions with extreme ease if the appellants are right. There would be nothing to prevent them from using the occasion of a minimal conversion (say pounds 1 nominal QCB) following a reorganisation and obtaining relief from CGT which was plainly contrary to and inconsistent with that which was intended to apply to a conversion connected to a reorganisation.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath,Lord Briggs, Lady Arden

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 24, [2019] BTC 15, [2019] STI 1127, [2019] 3 All ER 473, [2019] STC 1084, [2019] 1 WLR 3409, [2019] WLR(D) 346

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Dec 06 am Video, SC 2018 Dec 06 pm Video

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 115, Finance Act 1997 88(2) 116(1)(b) 127 132

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTxHancock and Hancock v Commissioners for Inland Revenue and Customs FTTTx 21-Jul-2014
FTTTx Capital gains tax – redemption of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) – scheme to avoid the application of s 116, TCGA to a conversion of non-QCBs into QCBs – s 116(1)(b) – whether a single conversion of . .
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v Hancock and Another UTTC 18-Feb-2016
UTTC Capital gains tax – redemption of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) – scheme to avoid the application of s 116 TCGA to a conversion of non-QCBs into QCBs – s 116(1)(b) and s 132 – whether a single . .
Appeal From (CA)Hancock and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 25-May-2017
interaction of the rules which relate to corporate reorganisations and those which relate to qualifying corporate bonds . .
CitedInland Revenue v Luke HL 15-Jan-1963
Income Tax, Schedule E-Benefit in kind-Director in occupation of company’s house-Expenditure by company on repairs and upkeep in excess of rent- Income Tax Act, 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. VI and 1 Eliz. II, c. 10), Sections 161 and 162. . .
CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
CitedJenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 16-Jun-1997
Legislation which created a clear anomaly can be interpreted so as to avoid the anomaly if the words used are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow an alternative construction.
Neuberger J discussed the case of Marshall v Kerr, saying: ‘It appears . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.638151

Jenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 16 Jun 1997

Legislation which created a clear anomaly can be interpreted so as to avoid the anomaly if the words used are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow an alternative construction.
Neuberger J discussed the case of Marshall v Kerr, saying: ‘It appears to me that the observations of Peter Gibson J, approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Marshall indicate that, when considering the extent to which one can ‘do some violence to the words’ and whether one can ‘discard the ordinary meaning’, one can, indeed one should, take into account the fact that one is construing a deeming provision. This is not to say that normal principles of construction somehow cease to apply when one is concerned with interpreting a deeming provision; there is no basis in principle or authority for such a proposition. It is more that, by its very nature, a deeming provision involves artificial assumptions. It will frequently be difficult or unrealistic to expect the legislature to be able satisfactorily to [prescribe] the precise limit to the circumstances in which, or the extent to which, the artificial assumptions are to be made.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-1997, [1997] STC 853

Statutes:

Finance Act 1989 138(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr CA 7-Apr-1993
A variation of trusts in Jersey will be deemed to have been made by the deceased – no Capital Gains Tax arising. Interpretation of deeming Provisions. The taxpayer was not a settlor in an overseas trust. Deeming provisions should not generally be . .
CitedMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr HL 30-Jun-1994
A settlor by will was deemed to have had an interest as funds were passed to a Jersey Trust. The section merely made or allowed that a variation of a will would not be a taxable event in UK law. It had no other effects. A deed of family arrangement . .

Cited by:

CitedHarding v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Lapsed Currency conversion option lost status
The taxpayer appealed his assessment to Capital Gains Tax on his redemption of loan notes arising following the sale of his computer company. He said that they were qualifying corporate bonds. The question was whether a security in which a currency . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .
CitedHancock and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 22-May-2019
The taxpayers sold their shares in return for loan notes in the form of mixed qualifying (QCB) and non qualifying corporate bonds (Non-QCB) within section 115 of the 1992 Act. Gains on the disposal of QCB would be exempt from CGT. These were then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.82512

Hancock and Hancock v Commissioners for Inland Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Jul 2014

FTTTx Capital gains tax – redemption of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) – scheme to avoid the application of s 116, TCGA to a conversion of non-QCBs into QCBs – s 116(1)(b) – whether a single conversion of non-QCBs and QCBs into QCBs or two separate conversions – whether the conversion and redemption should be treated as a single composite transaction of the disposal/redemption of non-QCBs – the Ramsay principle

Judges:

Robert Berner TJ

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 695 (TC), [2014] STI 2978, [2014] SFTD 1163

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At FTTTxRevenue and Customs v Hancock and Another UTTC 18-Feb-2016
UTTC Capital gains tax – redemption of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) – scheme to avoid the application of s 116 TCGA to a conversion of non-QCBs into QCBs – s 116(1)(b) and s 132 – whether a single . .
At FTTTxHancock and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 25-May-2017
interaction of the rules which relate to corporate reorganisations and those which relate to qualifying corporate bonds . .
At FTTTxHancock and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 22-May-2019
The taxpayers sold their shares in return for loan notes in the form of mixed qualifying (QCB) and non qualifying corporate bonds (Non-QCB) within section 115 of the 1992 Act. Gains on the disposal of QCB would be exempt from CGT. These were then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.535144

Hancock and Another v Revenue and Customs: CA 25 May 2017

interaction of the rules which relate to corporate reorganisations and those which relate to qualifying corporate bonds

Judges:

Lewison, Kitchen, Floyd LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 198, [2017] 1 WLR 4717, [2017] WLR(D) 363, [2017] STC 1496, [2017] STI 1325, [2017] BTC 14

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTxHancock and Hancock v Commissioners for Inland Revenue and Customs FTTTx 21-Jul-2014
FTTTx Capital gains tax – redemption of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) – scheme to avoid the application of s 116, TCGA to a conversion of non-QCBs into QCBs – s 116(1)(b) – whether a single conversion of . .
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v Hancock and Another UTTC 18-Feb-2016
UTTC Capital gains tax – redemption of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) – scheme to avoid the application of s 116 TCGA to a conversion of non-QCBs into QCBs – s 116(1)(b) and s 132 – whether a single . .

Cited by:

Appeal From (CA)Hancock and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 22-May-2019
The taxpayers sold their shares in return for loan notes in the form of mixed qualifying (QCB) and non qualifying corporate bonds (Non-QCB) within section 115 of the 1992 Act. Gains on the disposal of QCB would be exempt from CGT. These were then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.584526

Revenue and Customs v Hancock and Another: UTTC 18 Feb 2016

UTTC Capital gains tax – redemption of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) – scheme to avoid the application of s 116 TCGA to a conversion of non-QCBs into QCBs – s 116(1)(b) and s 132 – whether a single transaction of non-QCBs and QCBs into QCBs or two separate transactions – whether the conversion and redemption should be treated as a single composite transaction of the disposal/redemption of non-QCBs – the Ramsay principle

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 81 (TCC), [2016] STI 432, [2016] STC 1433, [2016] BTC 503

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTxHancock and Hancock v Commissioners for Inland Revenue and Customs FTTTx 21-Jul-2014
FTTTx Capital gains tax – redemption of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) – scheme to avoid the application of s 116, TCGA to a conversion of non-QCBs into QCBs – s 116(1)(b) – whether a single conversion of . .

Cited by:

At UTTCHancock and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 25-May-2017
interaction of the rules which relate to corporate reorganisations and those which relate to qualifying corporate bonds . .
At UTTCHancock and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 22-May-2019
The taxpayers sold their shares in return for loan notes in the form of mixed qualifying (QCB) and non qualifying corporate bonds (Non-QCB) within section 115 of the 1992 Act. Gains on the disposal of QCB would be exempt from CGT. These were then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.562426

Reeves v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Feb 2017

FTTTx (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs) CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Gift of business asset to UK-resident company by transferor with non-UK resident relatives – Hold-over relief claim disallowed by HMRC – Whether claim precluded by s 167 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – Yes – Whether construction of s 167 conforming with ECHR and EU law – Yes – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 192 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578537

Wase (Inspector of Taxes) v Bourke: ChD 24 Nov 1995

The separate sale of a milk quota on a farmer’s retirement had no capital gains tax exemption. No cessation relief was available on milk quota sold one year after the sale of the herd and the business.

Citations:

Ind Summary 08-Jan-1996, Times 24-Nov-1995

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 69(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agriculture, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.90312

Watton (Inspector of Taxes) v Tippett: ChD 21 Dec 1995

Roll-over relief was not available for the disposal of part only of a commercial asset.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jan-1996, Times 21-Dec-1995

Statutes:

Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 115(1) 115(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toWatton (Inspector of Taxes) v Tippett CA 27-Jun-1997
Proceeds of the sale of part of a business which had been invested back into the business cannot be rolled over into the acquisition cost of remainder. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromWatton (Inspector of Taxes) v Tippett CA 27-Jun-1997
Proceeds of the sale of part of a business which had been invested back into the business cannot be rolled over into the acquisition cost of remainder. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.90330

Regan and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Sep 2012

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – whether first appellant sold shares on two occasions for consideration stated on stock transfer forms – held yes – appeal in relation to sales of shares dismissed
INCOME TAX and CAPITAL GAINS TAX – whether sale of house in course of trade – held no – whether house only or main residence of appellants – held yes – appeals in relation to house allowed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 569 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.466185

Trustees of The P Panayi Accummulation and Maintenance Trusts Nos 1-4 v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Exit Tax On Trustees Relocating Elsewhere In Eu): FTTTx 24 Oct 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – exit tax on trustees relocating elsewhere in EU – CJEU judgment to be applied – whether conforming interpretation of UK legislation possible – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 622 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.644054

Marano v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax : Discovery Assessment): FTTTx 23 Apr 2020

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – discovery assessment – concept of staleness – whether stale – whether SA return issued – whether quantum correct – whether late filing penalties issued/notified – whether correctly calculated – whether payments on account reduce the base on which penalties calculated – whether special circumstances – appeal refused.

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 199 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.651580

Jolaoso v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jan 2011

INCOME TAX – section 34 ITTOIA – whether motoring expenses shown to be wholly and exclusively for professional purposes? No on the facts
CAPITAL GAINS TAX – whether taxpayer disponor alone or with wife? Alone on the facts – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 44 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.442812

Hashmi v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Disposal of Three Residential Properties): FTTTx 20 May 2020

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – disposal of three residential properties in three consecutive tax years – whether the properties had been the appellant’s residences – whether her occupation of the properties had the necessary degree of permanence, continuity or expectation of continuity – held on the evidence that it did not – sections 222 and 223 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 not applicable – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 229 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.652267

Allam v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 23 Nov 2021

PROCEDURE – automated notices requiring returns – effect of s103 Finance Act 2020 – effect of s12D TMA 1970 – validity of notices of enquiry under s9A TMA 1970 CAPITAL GAINS TAX – entrepreneurs’ relief – s165A(3) TCGA 1992 – company involved in property development and investment property – nature and extent of activities – whether a trading company INCOME TAX – remittance basis – business investment relief – whether dividend left outstanding on loan account correctly treated as an investment INCOME TAX – transactions in securities – whether main purpose or one of the main purposes of person being a party was to obtain an income tax advantage

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 291 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.671209

Bhiki v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Disposal): FTTTx 29 May 2020

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – transfer of property to a connected party to raise a mortgage – whether transfer a ‘disposal’ for capital gains purposes – Court Order governing the transaction – contract for sale and completion – whether s 60 TCGA as regards nominees and bare trustees – whether liability affected by the transfer being under an ‘implied trust’ – constructive or resulting – ss 68 and 70 of TCGA – discovery assessment under s 29 TMA stands good – penalty for inaccuracy in return under Sch 24 FA 2007 confirmed – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 243 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.652261

Evelyn v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Feb 2011

DISCOVERY ASSESSMENT – the Appellant mistakenly claimed business taper relief in respect of a chargeable gain on a disposal of land which had been previously let for the growing of grass for silage for a term of less than 365 days – the mistake resulted in the Appellant’s self assessment for tax in 2004/05 being insufficient – the Appellant accepted that the letting was farmed by the tenant – the Appellant argued that the 2004/05 return was made in accordance with the prevailing practice at the time – No persuasive evidence of a prevailing practice which treated short term lettings for the growing of grass as a trade where the owner did not occupy the land wholly or mainly for the purpose of farming – Appeal dismissed – assessment confirmed.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 121 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.442861