De 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.

Citations:

Ind Summary 22-May-1995

Statutes:

Finance Act 1981 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromDe 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.79854

Hunt v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Payment Under A Guarantee In Respect of Loan To Company): FTTTx 6 Aug 2019

Capital gains tax – Payment under a guarantee in respect of loan to company – Whether allowable loss – Whether ‘qualifying loan’ – Whether company commenced trading – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 515 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.641326

M Group Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Substantial Shareholding Exemption): FTTTx 12 Mar 2021

substantial shareholding exemption – schedule 7AC Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – paragraphs 7 and 15A – whether relief available when the shares have been owned by a company in a group for less than 12 months – no

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 69 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661786

Prizedome Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: CA 12 Mar 2009

This case is about the taxation of capital gains of groups of companies under the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (the 1992 Act). The appeal turns on the construction of section 177A of and Schedule 7A to the 1992 Act. Those provisions place restrictions on the set-off of ‘pre-entry losses.’ They were inserted in the 1992 Act by section 88 of the Finance Act 1993.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 177, [2009] BTC 114, [2009] STI 689, [2009] STC 980

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.317977

Kirby v Thorn EMI Plc: 1987

Taxation of asset assigned before it was created.

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1987] STC 621

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: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.196890

McHugh and Another v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 18 Jul 2018

Capital Gains Tax – Extra Statutory Concession D49 – time limits. Whether reliance upon the Concession is precluded altogether if the 12 (or 24 month) periods are exceeded – No.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 403 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621417

Cumming-Bruce v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Allowable Capital Losses): FTTTx 4 Dec 2020

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Allowable capital losses – Mansworth v Jelley – Section 9A enquiry or standalone claim and enquiry under Schedule 1A of the TMA 1970 – Cotter v HMRC – Discovery Assessment – section 29 TMA 1970 – whether the discovery had lost its essential newness or become stale by the time of assessment – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 490 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.661804

Kennedy v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Entrepreneurs Relief): FTTTx 5 Jan 2021

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – entrepreneurs’ relief – section 169I TCGA 1992 – whether Condition A satisfied – whether throughout the period of one year ending with the disposals the appellant was an employee of the company – existence of an employment – whether the employment was terminated prior to disposal – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 3 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661741

Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr: ChD 22 Jan 1992

A payment made from an estate which had been settled overseas by means of a deed of variation was deemed to have been a payment by the settlor, and taxable as such. In interpreting a deeming provision, the court musty consider carefully as between whom and for what purposes the deeming was to take effect.
Mrs K was to be regarded as the settlor because:
(1) the purpose of ss 24(7) and 24(11) Finance Act 1965 was to exclude from computation of gains any difference in value between the date of death and the date of the instrument which would otherwise be thought to accrue a person who made a deed of variation or other disposal by an instrument;
(2) those provisions were fully effective if they meant what they precisely B said but did not carry over into any further considerations of deeming than they provided; and
(3) those provisions disclosed no purpose which would lead to the conclusion that the words had wider and more effective results; in particular r there was no reason why they should be seen to be applicable in answering the question posed by s 42 of the 1965 Act, now ss 80-85 Finance Act 1981, as to whether the settlement was made by a person who was domiciled and resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom either at the date of the chargeable gains or at the date of the making of the settlement.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jan-1992, [1991] STC 686

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMarshall (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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.83431

Taylor Clark International Limited v Lewis (HM Inspector of Taxes): CA 18 Nov 1998

Security exchange losses on interest-bearing loan were not to be set off against capital gains as being a debt on a security even though secured. Being simply secured itself was insufficient to make a debt a debt on a security.

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1789

Statutes:

Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 134

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromTaylor Clark International Ltd v Lewis (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 24-Mar-1997
Currency fluctuation losses arising from a loan to a subsidiary overseas company were not allowable against capital gains tax. The words ‘the debt on a security’ in section 117(1)can refer to an obligation to pay or repay embodied in the Loan Note, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.145268

Garner (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Pounds Shipowners and Shipbreakers Ltd and Garner (Hm Inspector of Taxes) v Pounds: CA 25 Nov 1998

When calculating the chargeable gain on granting an option to purchase land, the costs of obtaining releases of restrictive covenants necessary to make the option worthwhile could not be deducted.

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1837

Statutes:

Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 19(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.145316

Eastham v Leigh London and Provincial Properties Ltd: CA 1971

A contract is not conditional merely because it contains obligations which may be termed promissory conditions. The taxpayer company was the prospective tenant under a building agreement. By clause 4 it agreed to build a six-story office block in Reading and clause 4 provided that if the building was completely and satisfactorily finished the landlords would grant a 125-year lease, which the tenant would accept.
Held: Upholding Goff J at first instance, the contract was not, in the relevant sense, conditional.
Buckley LJ read clause 4 and said: ‘Reading that clause in isolation there is something to be said for the view that it is couched in conditional terms and that suggests that the obligation of the landlords to grant a lease is conditional upon the prior performance by the tenants of their obligations under the contract. But when one comes to read the agreement as a whole, it appears to me to be perfectly clear that the tenants’ obligations with regard to clearing the site and putting up the building were part of the consideration which the tenants were giving in exchange for the landlords’ promise to grant them a lease for 125 years at pounds 5,000 a year, and the landlords are not to be expected to perform their part of the contract (that is to say, the granting of the lease) unless and until the tenants have performed their obligations which constitute the consideration for the landlords’ promise. Although clause 4 is couched in conditional language, in my view, it amounts to no more than this: it provides that if the tenants perform their part of the contract, then the landlords will perform their part of the contract; in other words, it is a recognition of the fact that the obligations of the parties are mutual and that the granting of the lease will, in fact, follow completion of performance of the obligations of the tenants. That is not, in my judgment, a condition precedent to the contract at all, it is part of the terms of the contract. You may call it a condition if you please, but it does not make it a condition precedent to the existence of a contract’.
Cairns LJ agreed and the judgment of Russell LJ, which treated it as a short and simple point, reached the same conclusion.

Judges:

Buckley LJ, Cairns LJ, Russell LJ

Citations:

(1971) 46 TC 687, [1971] Ch 871

Statutes:

Finance Act 1962

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, Contract

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.196885

Cleghorn v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Jul 2011

Appeals against two assessments and an amendment made by HMRC in respect of withdrawals made by the Appellant from an offshore insurance policy in excess of the permitted five per cent per annum of the premium – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 488 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.449436

Padfield and Others v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax and Income Tax – Whether A Loss Arising As A Result of Two Forward Contracts Over Securities): FTTTx 23 Dec 2020

CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND INCOME TAX – whether a loss arising as a result of two forward contracts over securities (and a related acquisition and disposal) which led to a loss in respect of shares or certificates of deposit and a matching gain in respect of gilts was allowable for capital gains tax purposes or deductible against miscellaneous income – no, because the principle outlined in WT Ramsay v IRC applied to the transactions – in addition, in the case of the shares, the loss was not allowable because it arose in connection with arrangements which had securing a tax advantage as a main purpose – whether the acquisition and disposal under the forward contracts were by way of bargain made at arm’s length – yes, because the terms of both contracts, together, could be taken into account for that purpose -whether the consideration paid for the shares under one of the forward contracts was given wholly and exclusively for the shares – the position was unclear – further evidence and submissions would have been required if that question had been relevant to the outcome of the appeals – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 513 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.661815

Lloyd-Webber v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Dec 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Contracts for land and properties to be built in Barbados – Properties not built – Disposal of contractual rights – Whether payments made under contracts prior to disposal of rights gave rise to losses for CGT purposes – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 717 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.646930

Reneaux and Another v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Entrepreneurs’): FTTTx 5 Nov 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – entrepreneurs’ relief under Chapter 3 TCGA 1992 – whether or not business carried on in partnership – held yes – whether or not activities amounted to trade – held not – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 666 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.646905

Simpson v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Principal Private Residence Relief): FTTTx 21 Nov 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – principal private residence relief – whether appellant occupied property for the purposes of section 222 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 704 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.646909

Brand v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Dec 2012

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – penalty – late payment – gain on disposal of land – no cash received from purchaser – application by taxpayer for time to pay – taxpayer’s application refused by HMRC too late for taxpayer to fund the tax payment from other sources prior to the penalty date

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 783 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472752

P and J Mccann (Toomebridge) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Mar 2013

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – section 35 TCGA 1992 – whether asset held on 31 March 1982 – nature of asset – alleged interest in land by way of estoppel – series of licences to extract sand – in the alternative, reliance on section 43 TCGA 1992 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 204 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472418

Patel and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Jan 2013

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – whether the Appellants disposed of property in 2001 or 2007 – held: disposal by appellants in 2007 – whether Appellants entitled to roll-over relief under section 152 TCGA or hold-over relief under section 165 TCGA – held: neither relief available- appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 84 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472307

Brucciani v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Jan 2013

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – late payment – first and second surcharges – section 59C Taxes Management Act 1970 – taxpayer allegedly misled by telephone advice from HMRC – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 85 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 59C

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472287

Goodwin 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.

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-1998, Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 271, (1998) 70 TC 478

Statutes:

Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 101 102

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromGoodwin 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. . .

Cited by:

CitedLongson 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.80921

Longson 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 the transaction was completed only two years later. In the interim he lived elsewhere. Before completion, he advertised the property for sale. He moved in without his family, having separated from his wife. He then completed the purchase of another property which he recorded as his residence. The Revenue denied that his occupation was a residence at the property. He appealed against the upholding of this assertion.
Held: The word ‘residence’ was an ordinary word. There was no ground for distinguishing its use in Capital Gains Tax and Income Tax contexts. There was ample evidence to support the Commissioners conclusion that he was in temporary occupation and not in residence: ‘The taxpayer had just separated from his wife and family. He had nowhere else to live. The Farmhouse had nine bedrooms and was hardly a suitable home for a single man. It had already been placed on the market. The taxpayer’s occupation was manifestly a stop gap measure pending the completion of his purchase of somewhere else to live. As soon as the Farmhouse was sold the taxpayer moved into Ayton. ‘ and
Temporary occupation at an address does not make a man resident there. The question whether the occupation is sufficient to make him resident is one of fact and degree for the Commissioners to decide.

Judges:

Morritt LJ VC, Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Capital Gains Tax Act 1989 101 102

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SCITLongson 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. . .
Appeal fromLongson 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 . .
CitedLevene v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1928
Until 1919 Mr. Levene had been both resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. Then, for five years he spent about five months (mainly in the summer) each year, staying in hotels in the UK and receiving medical attention or pursuing religious and . .
CitedKirkby v Hughes Chd 22-Feb-1993
Income tax was payable under Schedule D on the sale of a builder’s own house. He was shown to have been, in effect, trading taking into account his past record, and doubts about his intention ever to occupy the house as his residence. Some element . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.200904

Yates v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Aug 2012

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – appellant moved to Spain in 2000 and realised capital gains in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 before returning to the UK in 2008 – whether at the times the gains were realised she was resident and ordinarily resident in the UK – held she was – guidance from R (oao Davies and another) v Commissioners for HMRC and R (oao Gaines-Cooper) v Commissioners for HMRC considered and applied – whether taxation of the capital gains in the UK was nonetheless precluded by her being a resident of Spain at the times the gains were realised, for the purposes of the UK/Spain Double Taxation Convention – held it was not because for the purposes of the Convention she was at those times a resident of the UK by reason of her personal and economic relations (centre of vital interests) being closer to the UK than to Spain – appeal dismissed – decision in principle

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 568 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466112

McLaughlin v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Mar 2012

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – ss 60 and 71 TCGA- Was beneficiary to whom appointment made absolutely entitled? Yes as a matter of general law – Did artificiality mean it did not signify for tax purposes? No – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 174 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462627

Symonds v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Mar 2012

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – whether improvements to property an allowable expense – whether ‘gifted deposit’ an allowable expense – appeal allowed in part in respect of improvements and dismissed in respect of ‘gifted deposit’

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 197 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462642

Potter v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 29 Aug 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Entrepreneurs’ Relief – whether appellants’ company was a trading company during the relevant period -whether there were substantial non-trading activities

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 554 (TC), [2020] SFTD 82, [2019] STI 1556

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.641348

Friel v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax : Late Payment Penalties): FTTTx 11 Feb 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – late payment penalties – Schedule 56 to FA 2009 – whether s 280 TCGA on ‘Consideration payable by instalments’ applies – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction over HMRC’s decision – whether delays in replying to application for s 280 TCGA treatment gave rise to a reasonable excuse at each penalty date – whether reasonable care taken in reliance on a third party – whether special circumstances – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 91 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.635697

Lo v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 15 Oct 2018

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Section 222 TCGA 1992 – whether the Appellant was entitled to principal private residence relief on disposal of property – whether the property was the Appellant’s residence – no

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 605 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.632351

Eccles v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 12 Feb 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Loss Relief for loans to traders – TCGA 1992 s 253 – Was a payment made by the Appellant towards a company’s indebtedness made ‘under a guarantee’ – Yes – Did the Appellant control the money which was the source of the payment? – Yes – When did the allowable loss arise? – When the payment was made under the personal guarantee, which was in March 2012 – Loss cannot be carried back to earlier years – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 95 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.635694

Commission v Belgium C-370/11: ECJ 10 May 2012

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement – Discriminatory taxation of capital gains realized on the redemption of shares in undertakings for collective investment established in Norway or in Iceland and not granted an authorization In accordance with Directive 85/611 / EEC

Citations:

C-370/11, [2012] EUECJ C-370/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:287

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.459569

Foulser and Another v Macdougall: CA 17 Jan 2007

The taxpayers sought relief after giving shares in a company to another company owned by themselves. The taxpayers appealed refusal of hold over relief in respect of chargeable gains.
Held: The holdings in the recipient company made the companies connected with each other. The section was plainly intended to provide this result, even though that company was Irish.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Lindsay

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 8, Times 24-Jan-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 , Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 165

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At CommissionersFoulser v HM Inspector of Taxes SCIT 22-Feb-2005
CAPITAL GAINS TAX – shareholder giving shares in private company to a company held within an insurance bond – whether the former shareholder and the insurance company were connected persons as acting together to secure or exercise control of the . .
Appeal fromFoulser and Another v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 20-Dec-2005
The taxpayer company entered into an arrangement in which shares were purchased by a company based in Ireland and resold. A claim was made for holdover relief.
Held: The scheme failed. The restriction imposed did not infringe the right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.247931

NAP Holdings UK Ltd v Whittles (Inspector of Taxes): CA 15 Jul 1993

The consideration deemed to have been given on the acquisition of shares of parent company is to be at market value not at the base price. The Acts provisions for intra group transfer of assets do not apply to oust Capital Gains rules.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Dec-1993, Times 15-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 09-Aug-1993

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 273(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.84165

General Distribution and Storage Limited v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax – Transfer of Headingley Cricket Stadium): FTTTx 30 Aug 2019

Capital Gains Tax. Transfer of Headingley Cricket Stadium and whether attached ‘business’ or ‘income streams’. Whether goodwill existed, was capable of transfer and was in fact transferred.
Held: transfer of business with attached goodwill and not merely income streams. Importance of evidence and the value of opinions when looking at facts. IRC v Muller and Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217, Ramsay v HMRC [2013] UKUT 226 (TCC), Kenmir v Frizzell and Others – [1968] 1 All ER 414 considered and applied. Balloon Promotions Ltd and others v Wilson (Inspector of Taxes) and another SpC 524 (2006) considered and approved.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 559 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.641317

The Quentin Skinner 2005 Settlement L and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Entrepreneurs Relief): FTTTx 6 Aug 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – entrepreneurs relief – section 169 whether J Taxation of Chargeable Gains Tax Act 1992 – trust business assets – shares – settlement business assets – whether ‘qualifying beneficiary’ must be a qualifying beneficiary throughout a period of one year ending not earlier than three years before the date of disposal – section 169 J (4) – appeals allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 516 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641349

Fitzjohn v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 27 Jul 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – principal private residence relief – whether appellant’s sequential stay at two properties qualified as residence or only a temporary stay for the purposes of section 222 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 488 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641270

Sidebottom v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Computation): FTTTx 21 Sep 2018

Capital gains tax – sale of land – whether property owned jointly – yes – enhancement expenditure – whether expenditure incurred by associated company is to be treated as incurred by landowners – no – whether amount assessed should be increased under section 50 Taxes Management Act 1970 – no – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 549 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632321

Tang v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Discovery Assessments): FTTTx 6 Feb 2019

INCOME TAX AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX – discovery assessments – penalties for ‘deliberate’ behaviour – whether assets held in trust – no trust document -whether income and gains belonged to Appellant

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 81 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.641231

Kaura v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other): FTTTx 8 Mar 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – whether assessments have been determined by agreement – no – accordingly, application to strike out the appeal dismissed – whether permission to give late notice of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal is required – no – if such permission had been required, would it have been given – no

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 182 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.635756

Looney, Kiernan Looney and Associates (Partnership) v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Partnership): FTTTx 16 Oct 2018

INCOME TAX – CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Partnership – Appeal against Amendment to Partnership Return for 2009-2010 – Discovery – attribution of income and turnover to partnership or company – termination payment trading and revenue receipt or non-taxable capital receipt – appeal against amendment to self-assessment return for 2011-2012 – capital gains chargeability – acquisition and disposition of shares – chargeable gain or gift – calculation of gain – joint interest held by Appellant and wife – entrepreneurs relief – Appeal against closure notice and amendment to self-assessment return for 2009-2010

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 619 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.632350

Slocock v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Oct 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other – non-resident CGT return – penalties of pounds 1,600 for failure to file return within 30 days of completion of property sale – whether HMRC have shown penalty due: no, Article 13 Protocol 7 to the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union makes the appellant UK resident – whether ignorance of law reasonable excuse: yes, following Perrin in Upper Tribunal – whether reliance on third party reasonable excuse: yes – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 569 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.632364

Hunt v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 26 Mar 2019

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Entrepreneur’s relief – meaning of personal company – meaning of ‘issued share capital’ – Canada Safeway followed – not a multi-factorial evaluation – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 210 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.635758

Wesley and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Apr 2019

Capital Gains Tax – Potential Liability of The Appellants To CGT Liabilities of A Trust – Potential liability of the Appellants to CGT liabilities of a trust – Application to advance new Grounds of Appeal, including mistake, non est factum and undue influence in relation to the Second Appellant’s execution of a deed – Application allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 259 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.637878

Ahad v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Dec 2009

Capital gains tax – roll-over relief on compulsory acquisition of land – section 247TCGA – whether disposal was to ‘an authority exercising or having compulsory powers’ within the definition in s.243(5) TCGA – that definition including a person for whom another person could be authorised to acquire the land transferred compulsorily for the purposes for which it was acquired – whether the actual purchaser was a person for whom the Commission for New Towns could have been authorised to acquire the land disposed of compulsorily for the purposes for which it was acquired – held that the Commission for New Towns could not have been so authorised – ss. 36 and 37 and Schedule 10 New Towns Act 1981 considered – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 353 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.409133

West and Others (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Trennery and others: ChD 1 Apr 2003

The taxpayers had adopted the ‘flip-flop’ scheme to reduce their Capital Gains Tax liability.
Held: The section was intended to prevent relief where the settlor retained some direct or indirect benefit. Derived property was defined to include income from settled property, and that could include property outside the settlement if there was also property within the settlement of which it could be said to represent the proceeds. Loans in this scheme were indirectly derived form the utilisation of the shares within the settlement, and the scheme failed.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith

Citations:

[2003] WTLR 739, Times 18-Apr-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003, [2003] STC 580, [2003] EWHC 676 (Ch), [2003] STI 585, [2003] BTC 317

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromTrennery v West (HM Inspector of Taxes) and Related Appeals CA 18-Dec-2003
. .
At first instanceTrennery v West (Inspector of Taxes) HL 27-Jan-2005
The House considered the application of the section to ‘flip-flop trusts’. The section allocated liability to charge on gains within a settlement under certain circumstances onto the settlor, and at his rate of tax. Assets were allocated to two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax, Trusts

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.180461

Broome v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2011

FTTTx Capital gains tax – s 2 TCGA 1992 – taxpayer left UK – evidence that he remained resident and retained links with the UK for at least part of the year of assessment -no close connection to country to which he moved – whether he remained resident or ordinarily resident in the UK during year of assessment – yes

Judges:

Connell TJ

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 760 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450852

David Robson v Eric Mitchell (HM Inspector of Taxes): ChD 8 Jul 2004

The taxpayer sought capital gains tax relief of a loan to a business.
Held: To succeed in his claim the taxpayer had to establish that the indebtedness created was to be used entirely to serve the borrower’s business.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1596 (Ch), Times 22-Jul-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 253(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedStrong and Co of Romsey Ltd v Woodifield HL 30-Jul-1906
The company sought to deduct from its trading profits a sum expended paying damages for personal injuries to a visitor to the taxpayer’s Inn. The claim had been rejected.
Held: The company’s appeal failed. Lord Davey said: ‘I think that the . .
CitedMorgan v Tate and Lyle Ltd HL 1955
The words ‘for the purposes of the trade’ in the statute mean ‘for the purposes of enabling a person to carry on and earn profits in the trade’. Money spent for the purpose of preserving the trade from destruction can properly be treated as wholly . .
CitedVodafone Cellular Ltd v G Shaw (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) CA 20-Mar-1997
The court considered the application of the ‘exclusively’ test for expenditure which was sought to be set off against tax. Examining the leading modern cases, Millett LJ said: ‘the following propositions may be derived. (1) The words for the . .
CitedMacKinlay (Inspector of Taxes) v Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co HL 23-Nov-1989
Expenditure does not qualify for deduction if the object of the expenditure was to serve another private purpose in addition to the business purpose for which it was purportedly incurred.
HL Income Tax – . .
CitedMallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .
CitedBentleys, Stokes and Lowless v Beeson (HMIT) CA 1952
The court considered whether the partners in a firm of solicitors could deduct from profits the expenses involved in entertaining clients to lunch.
Held: They were deductible, notwithstanding the element of hospitality involved: ‘The relevant . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRobson v Mitchell (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 18-May-2005
The company had taken out a loan to finance works on the farm. The loan was guaranted by the taxpayer. Years later when the farm was sold, part of the money was used to repay the loan, and the taxpayer sought to set it off against his liability for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.198597

Foulser and Another v HM Inspector of Taxes: ChD 20 Dec 2005

The taxpayer company entered into an arrangement in which shares were purchased by a company based in Ireland and resold. A claim was made for holdover relief.
Held: The scheme failed. The restriction imposed did not infringe the right of establishment under European law since the company was not restricted from setting up business. It would lose only the fees associated with the transactions. The court should no rule on hypothetical questions: ‘Taxation provisions may have any number of incidental effects on the ability of financial institutions and professionals established in other Member States to charge fees, but that cannot of itself engage the right of freedom of establishment.’

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2958 (Ch), Times 13-Jan-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gans Tax Act 1992 165(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSteele v EVC International NV 1996
Control of a company within the section means shareholder control. . .
CitedX and Y v Riksskatteverket ECJ 21-Nov-2002
Europa Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Income tax – Tax advantages for the transfer at undervalue of shares to companies in which the transferor has a holding
Swedish legislation . .
CitedAinsbury v Millington (Note) HL 1987
There had been a dispute between the parties as to a council house tenancy, but by the time it came before the House, the tenancy had ceased to exist, and the action was academic.
Held: Once the parties have settled their dispute there remains . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame ECJ 25-Jul-1991
ECJ Member States – Obligations – Exercise of residual powers in the field of the registration of vessels – Compliance with Community law. Free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Registration of a . .
CitedRegina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
CitedBacardi-Martini and Cellier des Dauphins v Newcastle United Football Company Ltd ECJ 21-Jan-2003
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Refusal to display advertisements for alcoholic drinks at a sporting event taking place in a Member State whose law allows television . .
CitedLourenco Dias v Director da Alfandega do Porto ECJ 16-Jul-1992
Europa 1. In the framework of the procedure for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the courts of the Member States provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty, the national court, which alone has direct . .
CitedRegina v International Stock Exchange, ex parte Else (1982) Ltd CA 1993
The court gave guidance on the circumstances under which questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
CitedMetallgesellschaft Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another Hoechst Ag and Another v Same ECJ 8-Mar-2001
The British law which meant that non-resident parent companies of British based businesses were not able to recover interest on payments of advance corporation tax, was discriminatory against other European based companies. Accordingly the law was . .
CitedImperial Chemical Industries Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) HL 18-Nov-1999
Where a group of companies sought consortium group relief, but the majority of the companies within the group were based outside the European Union, the court need not apply European Union standards to the test, but could instead apply the standards . .
CitedImperial Chemical Industries v Colmer ECJ 16-Jul-1998
A member state was not allowed to impose a tax regime which discriminated against the subsidiaries of a company based in that state where they were based in other member states, but discrimination was allowed where the subsidiaries were based . .
CitedLankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt ECJ 12-Dec-2002
German law taxed interest paid on loan repayments made by a company against a loan from a shareholder, but only where the shareholder was not resident in the same country as the company. The tax authority took the view that the payments were a . .
CitedC. Baars v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorinchem ECJ 13-Apr-2000
Europa Freedom of establishment – Assets invested in shares in companies established in the taxing Member State – Exemption from wealth tax – Assets invested in shares in companies established in another Member . .
CitedGraziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro ECJ 31-Jan-1984
The freedom to provide services includes the freedom, for the recipients of services, to go to another member state in order to receive a service there, without being obstructed by restrictions, even in relation to payments. Tourists, persons . .
CitedEurowings Luftverkehrs AG v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna ECJ 26-Oct-1999
Freedom to provide services – Commercial tax on capital and operating profit – Reinstatement in tax base – Exemption not applicable to lessee of property whose owner is established in another Member State and therefore not subject to tax . .
Appeal FromFoulser v HM Inspector of Taxes SCIT 22-Feb-2005
CAPITAL GAINS TAX – shareholder giving shares in private company to a company held within an insurance bond – whether the former shareholder and the insurance company were connected persons as acting together to secure or exercise control of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromFoulser and Another v Macdougall CA 17-Jan-2007
The taxpayers sought relief after giving shares in a company to another company owned by themselves. The taxpayers appealed refusal of hold over relief in respect of chargeable gains.
Held: The holdings in the recipient company made the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Capital Gains Tax, European

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.236571

Gardiner and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 May 2014

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – penalties – section 95 TMA 1970 – negligently delivering a return – preliminary issue – whether the respondents have adduced evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 421 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.526818

National Grid Indus v Inspecteur van de Rijnmond Belastingdienst / kantoor Rotterdam: ECJ 8 Sep 2011

ECJ Opinion – Freedom of establishment – Companies – Exit taxation for companies that move their headquarters to another Member State – Establishment and taxation of hidden reserves – unrealized foreign exchange gains

Judges:

Julianne Kokott AG

Citations:

C-371/10, [2011] EUECJ C-371/10

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

OpinionNational Grid Indus v Inspecteur van de Rijnmond Belastingdienst / kantoor Rotterdam ECJ 29-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than that in which it is incorporated – Freedom of establishment – Article 49 TFEU – Taxation of unrealised . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Company, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444129

Charlton and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Jul 2011

Capital gains tax – whether discovery assessments were valid – whether sub-section 29(1) TMA 1970 permitted a discovery assessment to be made when no new facts or changed view of the law had emerged – how the notional officer should be considered to approach the question posed by section 29(5) TMA on the basis of the information deemed to be available to him – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 467 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443164

Lowrie v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 May 2011

Whether the purchase and sale of a property within a short period of time was a trading activity and if not whether the nature of the Appellant’s stay in the property enabled him to qualify for principal private residence relief- appeal dismissed because during period of ownership Appellant stayed mainly in another property

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 309 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443056

Revenue and Customs v Cotter: ChD 14 Apr 2011

The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due under the initial return.
Held: The County Court had jurisdiction to determine in collection proceedings whether the taxpayer was entitled to rely on the claim for relief as a defence to a demand by the Revenue for immediate payment and (b) Cotter was not entitled to rely on his claim for loss relief as a defence to the Revenue’s demand for payment of the tax due in respect of 2007/08.
HMRC were correct in their submission that Mr Cotter’s claim for loss relief related to the 2008/09 year of assessment and so could not be included in his return for 2007/08.

Judges:

David Richards J VC

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 896 (Ch), [2011] STI 1522, [2011] BTC 282

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 2007 128

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBlackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling CA 21-Aug-2003
The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and . .
CitedAutologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .

Cited by:

At ChDCotter v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Nov-2013
This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a . .
Appeal FromHM Revenue and Customs v Cotter CA 8-Feb-2012
Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434886

Revenue and Customs v Blackwell: UTTC 13 Aug 2015

UTTC CAPITAL GAINS TAX – section 38(1)(b) Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – whether expenditure incurred ‘on’ an asset and ‘reflected in the state or nature of the asset at the time of disposal’ – whether expenditure incurred ‘in establishing, preserving or defending title to, or to a right over, the asset

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 418 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 38(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.553196

Harvey’s Jersey Cream Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Nov 2013

FTTTx CGT – EIS – proceeds of share subscription invested in partnership of which company already a member and paid out to other partners – whether monies raised for the purpose of, or employed in a qualifying business activity – para 1(2)(f) and (g) Sch 5B TCGA 1992.
Held: no.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 663 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.518612

Henke and Another v Revenue Customs: SCIT 2 May 2006

SCIT Capital gains tax – purchase of plot held for some years – subsequent construction of only or main residence – later disposals of two plots – what deductions allowable – extent of ‘permitted area’ – whether period of ownership began with construction of residence or acquisition of land – whether apportionment necessary – details submitted on Forms R40 and SA108 – whether ‘returns’ – whether enquiry properly commenced – whether assessments valid – whether enquiry for following year valid

Citations:

[2006] UKSPC SPC00550

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.242825

Coll and Coll v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 5 Mar 2010

UTTC CAPITAL GAINS TAX – exchange of shares for debentures – whether TCGA 1992 s 137 applies to each shareholder separately – no – whether Special Commissioner entitled to conclude that the main purpose was tax avoidance – yes – appeal dismissed

Judges:

Avery Jones CBE

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 114 (TCC), [2010] STI 2112, [2010] BTC 1513, [2010] STC 1849

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 137

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428151

Klincke v HMRC: UTTC 7 Jul 2010

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – securities issued in exchange for shares – whether securities became qualifying corporate bonds on subsequent amendment of terms – yes – whether amendment amounted to a conversion of securities – yes – whether gain on subsequent redemption chargeable to tax – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 230 (TCC), [2010] STI 2349, [2010] STC 2032, [2010] BTC 1644

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428161

Revenue and Customs v The Quentin Skinner 2005 Settlement L, The Quentin Skinner 2005 Settlement R, The Quentin Skinner 2005 Settlement B: UTTC 11 Feb 2021

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – entrepreneurs’ relief – whether beneficiary must be a qualifying beneficiary throughout a period of one year ending not earlier than three years before disposal – yes – appeals allowed

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 29 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.658639

Iny v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Sep 2010

FTTTX CAPITAL GAINS TAX – value of shares in private limited company – shares disposed of in 1994 – stated consideration of pounds 20,000 – whether arm’s length sale – no -tax to be based on market value of shares – TCGA 1992 ss 17, 272 -identification of market value

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 457 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426581

Williamson Tea Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jul 2010

FTTTx Disposal of a substantial shareholding by a company – exemption from corporation tax under Sch 7AC TCGA 1992 – whether a non-compete agreement pursuant to share sale agreement and for which part of agreed share sale price had been apportioned should be treated as a separate sale or deemed disposal of goodwill and therefore taxable as a corporate chargeable gain under s.22 TCGA.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 301 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 Sch7AC

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422342

Segesta Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 May 2010

Capital gains tax (CGT) – enterprise investment scheme (EIS) – reinvestment relief – TCGA 1992, Sch 5B – whether amount received by subscriber in relevant period was repayment of debt or payment within Sch 5B, para 13(2) – fraud or malfeasance of agent – agent acting without authority – mistake – whether shares issued were ‘eligible shares’

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 235 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422246

Schofield v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Apr 2010

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – ALLOWABLE LOSS – Tax scheme involving options – the Options entered into were interlinked – no separate commercial existence – part of an indivisible process – planned as a single continuous operation – disputed loss construed against the whole transaction involving the four Options – no allowable loss – Appeal dismissed on substantive dispute
CAPITAL GAINS TAX – OPTIONS OVER GILTS – whether exempt under section 115 TCGA – Yes

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 196 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422182