FTTTx Corporation tax – preliminary issue – was discovery determination under paragraph 41(2) Schedule 18 FA 1998 made within time limit – no – appeal against information notice under Schedule 36 FA 2008 – were taxpayer’s records statutory records – yes – appeal struck out in part – were other information and documents reasonably required for purposes of checking taxpayer’s tax position – yes – appeal dismissed and notice confirmed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 434 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.515218

Corporation Profits Tax – Company carrying on trade or business – Mutual trading concern – Mutual insurance company – Finance Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. V, c. 18), Sections 52 and 53 (2) (h).

Citations:

[1926] UKHL TC – 12 – 841, [1926] AC 281, 12 TC 841

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.633828

Corporation Profits Tax – Company carrying on trade or business or similar undertaking – Company formed for more convenient administration of family estates-Company in receipt of annuity as consideration for constructing a railway. – Company carrying on social club-Mutual trading concern-Finance Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. V, c. 18), Section 52.

Citations:

[1925] UKHL TC – 12 – 657

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.633844

Corporation Profits Tax – Company manufacturing wagons for sale or hire – Whole stock of wagons used for hire sold at a profit – Whether capital accretion or profits of trade-Finance Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. V, c. 18), Sections 52 and 53.

Citations:

[1925] UKHL TC – 12 – 720

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.633843

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 942 (Ch)

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 103 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTx – Shop Direct Group and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 14-Feb-2012
FTTTx Corporation tax – receipts of payments in respect of overpaid VAT and statutory interest – whether VAT repayments trading receipts – whether payments in respect of supplies made in discontinued trades . .
Appeal from – Shop Direct Group, Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HMRC UTTC 19-Apr-2013
UTTC Corporation Tax: Effect of receipt by trader or successor to trade of sums in respect of VAT repaid under s80 VATA to representative member of VAT group plus interest paid under s78 VATA. Question of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Shop Direct Group v Revenue and Customs CA 11-Mar-2014
The company sought to challenge the assessment to corporation tax of a very large repayment of VAT, together with an even larger amount of interest.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
At ChD – Shop 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.472829

FTTtx CORPORATION TAX – whether notice opening enquiry simultaneously closed the enquiry – no – appeal struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 41 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.472280

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 the merger materialise. Later in that year the taxpayers were approached regarding the possibility of a sale of Q Ltd to J Ltd. The merger negotiations with C Ltd ceased during negotiations to sell Q Ltd. Later, amid fears that the sale to J Ltd would not materialise, those merger talks were resumed and M Ltd, an Isle of Man company, was incorporated. However, talks then started up again with J Ltd, and the taxpayers exchanged their shares in Q Ltd for shares in M Ltd. Following further negotiation, J Ltd purchased the shares in Q Ltd from M Ltd. The House considered what would amount to a pre-ordained series of transactions when considering their tax effect.
Held: (Lord Templeman and Lord Goff of Chieveley dissenting) in determining whether a number of transactions of which at least one (the intermediate transaction) had no purpose other than tax avoidance should be treated for fiscal purposes not as independent but as forming part of one composite linear transaction from which tax consequences flowed within the Ramsay principle, as extended by Furniss v Dawson, it had to be shown, for the principle to be applicable, that:
(1) the series of transactions in question was, at the time when the intermediate transaction was entered into, pre-ordained in order to produce a given result;
(2) the series of transactions had no purpose other than tax mitigation;
(3) there was at that time no practical likelihood that the pre-ordained events would not take place in the order ordained, so that the intermediate transaction was not even contemplated practically as having an independent life; and
(4) the pre-ordained events did in fact take place. On this basis, the majority held that the share exchange in Craven v White could not be disregarded and that the Crown’s appeal was dismissed.
Lord Oliver said: ‘Another identifying feature is that all the stages of what is claimed as the composite transaction are pre-ordained to take place in an orchestrated sequence and, in my opinion, that must mean more than simply ‘planned or thought out in advance’. It involves to my mind a degree of certainty and control over the end result at the time when the intermediate steps are taken. That does not, I think, mean absolute certainty in the sense that every single term of the transaction which ultimately takes place must then be finally settled and agreed. But it does seem to me to be essential at least that the principal terms should be agreed to the point at which it can be said that there is no practical likelihood that the transaction which actually takes place will not take place. Nor is it sufficient, in my opinion, that the ultimate transaction which finally takes place, though not envisaged at the intermediate stage as a concrete reality, is simply a transaction of the kind that is then envisaged, for the underlying basis of the Ramsay doctrine is that it must, on the facts, be possible to analyse the sequence as one single identifiable transaction and if, at the completion of the intermediate disposition, it is not even known to whom or upon what terms any ultimate disposition will be made, I simply do not see how such an analysis is intellectually possible. It is an essential part of the analysis that there is but one disposal and not two and that the transfer to the intermediate company is not a ‘disposal’ within the meaning of the statute.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Templeman and Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

[1989] AC 398, [1988] 3 All ER 495, [1988] 3 WLR 423

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Applied – Ensign 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186341

The taxpayer company operated a wholesale cash and carry business from a number of self-service supermarkets. The stores sold groceries, household goods, tobacco, confectionery and various kinds of alcohol. Although the buildings were not open to the public the customers who were mainly retail traders and caterers had access to most parts of the store except for a bonded warehouse and were able physically to remove the goods they wanted to buy from the shelves. The premises operated much like a retail supermarket. Goods were paid for at a checkout and most customers removed their purchases in their own transport. The company contended that its use of the stores fell within both s.7(1)(f) and s.7(1)(e) of the Capital Allowances Act 1968 as extended by s.7(2).
Held: The warehouse had been used as a wholesale cash and carry supermarket and was not an industrial building for capital allowance purposes. The term ‘storage’ in s.18(1)(f) (and by extension in s.18(2)) is to be given a very limited meaning. The court analysed what is meant by ‘a trade which consists in the storage’ of qualifying goods and materials by examining what he refers to as the statutory context of the phrase in terms of nine propositions: (3-8) ‘(3) A building may be in use for the purposes of a trade which qualifies it for allowances though it is in use at the same time (and indeed more intensively) for another non-qualifying trade. The use of a building for dual purposes, one qualifying and one not, may qualify the building for allowances so long as the use for the qualifying purpose is not small or insignificant and such that it could not reasonably be brought within the Act: see Saxone, Lilley and Skinner (Holdings) Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 44 TC 122, at 140 (‘Saxone’).
(4) A building in use for a purpose which does not of itself qualify it for allowances under s7(1)(e) or (f), may nonetheless qualify if the use is ancillary to a use which does qualify: see Sarsfield v. Dixons Group plc [1997] STC 283, at 298. Thus a building may be in use for the purposes of a trade consisting in a ‘mill, factory or other similar premises’ or of a trade carried on of the manufacture or processing of goods or materials, if the building is used for the storage of goods or raw materials to be used in, or of the product of, that trade.
(5) The conditions which s 7(1)(e) and (f) require to be complied with are strict: the use is to be of a building (and not a part or parts of a building) and the trade is to consist in (and not merely involve or include) the specified activity. The strictness in respect of both elements is, however, relaxed by subsequent provisions. Section 87(4) provides that a part of a building may constitute an industrial building if the statutory conditions are satisfied in respect of that part. Section 7(2) provides that, if part only of the trade carried on satisfies the statutory conditions, a building or part of a building in use for that part of the trade may qualify as an industrial building. I shall later in this judgment have to consider what constitutes a part of a trade.
(6) The extended ambit of s 7(1) (to which I have referred to in (4) above) and the relaxations (to which I have referred to in (5) above) are reflected in s 7(4). This subsection is designed to disqualify from entitlement to allowances buildings used for the purposes there specified (which include a showroom or shop). The draftsman recognised that it was necessary to spell out that the disqualification extended to buildings or parts of buildings used for any of these specified purposes or for any purpose ancillary to these purposes.
(7) Section 7(1)(f) in terms strictly limits use which qualifies thereunder for allowances to use for a trade which does not merely involve or include storage, but which consists in storage of the specified goods. Storage must be the (and not merely a) constituent of the trade. But s 7(2) relaxes this restriction and provides that, where storage is not the trade carried on, but is part of the trade carried on, a building or part of a building used for this purpose qualifies for the allowances.
(8) Whilst s 7(4) expressly disqualifies from entitlement to allowances a building or part of a building used for the trade of a retail shop or showroom (and accordingly a retail supermarket) and for storage ancillary to such use, it is common ground that (perhaps because they were not yet thought of in 1945) there is no such disqualification of a building or part of a building used for the trade of a wholesale supermarket or use ancillary to such trade. Accordingly if and so far as a building is in use for the purpose of storage of the specified goods and such use is part of the trade of a wholesale supermarket, by virtue of s 7(2) the building may attract the allowances.’
Lightman J concluded: ‘The authorities make clear that there may be ‘storage’ where
goods are kept or held for a limited period and indeed for shorter periods than the 6-8 week period during which Bestway’s goods are in the building. In Saxone the shoes were held to be stored in a warehouse though they remained there for 10-13 weeks or less. In Crusabridge Investments Ltd. v. Casings International Ltd. 54 TC 246 (‘Crusabridge’) a building was held to qualify: (a) under s 7(1)(f)(ii) because tyres were ‘stored’ though often for no more than 7 days awaiting removal for processing (i.e. remoulding) by remoulders; and (b) under s 7(1)(f)(iii) because the processed (i.e. remoulded) tyres still owned by the re-moulder were stored there pending delivery to a purchaser. But the length of time during which goods are kept or held can only be one, and not the decisive factor or the factor of first importance, in determining whether they are stored: the determining factor must be the purpose for which the goods are kept or held. If goods are delivered for safe keeping to a depository (e.g. a bank providing a safe deposit), so long as the goods remain in the possession of the depository they may be described, as ‘stored’; but this would not be the apt description of goods handed over in the course of his business to a repairer or pawnbroker.
In this case what is critical is the nature of the enterprise intended to be carried on and actually carried on by Bestway at the buildings and the role played by the stock in that enterprise. For a building is only used for storage if the purpose of keeping goods there is their storage as an end in itself: there is no such use for storage if the goods are kept there for some other purpose: consider Kay v. Burrows and Others [1931] AC 454. All the stock in the present case is kept in the buildings, not for storage, but for sale. No goods are reserved or withheld for future use: they are all likewise available for sale and intended to be sold as soon as the turnover allows. For practical reasons only part of the stock can be made physically available for self-service by customers; but that does not alter the fact that the back-up stock is intended to be made immediately available as soon as required to meet demand. In short, as it seems to me, ‘storage’ in s 7(1)(f) means keeping in storage as a purpose and end in itself, and does not extend to such storage as is merely a necessary and transitory incident of the conduct of the business of a wholesale supermarket. The goods enter the buildings upon their final journey to the customers. The 6-8 weeks of stock at any time in the buildings may be likened to stock on an extension to the open shelves or on a conveyor belt to the open shelves. Far from being kept in reserve, the stock is in the process or in the course of being made available to purchasers at the buildings.
It is submitted by Bestway that this conclusion is inconsistent with the decision in Crusabridge. The decision in Crusabridge may be explained on its own facts, namely that there was in that case a finding that the collection and storage of tyres was ‘an essential part’ of the business: see pages 248C-249G. But in any event I do not think that that decision should stand in the way of what is clearly the correct answer in this case.’

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 04-Mar-1998, Gazette 01-Apr-1998, (1998) 70 TC 512, [1998] STC 357

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kay v Burrows HL 1931
The House considered whether premises (the greater part of which was used for the storage of rags awaiting processing, sorting or subsequent despatch) fell within the proviso to s.3(1) which excluded premises ‘primarily occupied and used [for the] . .
Cited – Saxone Lilley and Skinner (Holdings) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue HL 1967
The taxpayer company was the parent company of a group of subsidiaries, one of which traded as the manufacturer and retailer of shoes. The others either manufactured or sold shoes. The company built a warehouse which was let to a warehousing . .

Cited by:

Cited – Revenue and Customs v Maco Door and Window Hardware (Uk) Ltd ChD 19-Jul-2006
The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The . .
Cited – Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked whether a warehouse used to store purchases made by the company from its parent company in Austria, was an ‘industrial building or structure’. It was agreed that the facility was used for the storage of materials for use in later . .
Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78370

The Commisioner was asked whether receipts of an associated company, The Share and Debenture Trust Ltd, were part of a business. The company did not trade, but owned shares in the taxpayer company and a freehold property. The Special Commissioner approached the matter by looking at each of the activities of the associated company and asking in respect of each activity whether it amounted to a business, and then by standing back and asking whether, viewed broadly, it was in each of the relevant years carrying on any business. She concluded that in each of the years the associated company carried on business in the managing and letting of property because the Memorandum of Association showed that it was incorporated for the purpose of carrying on or undertaking business of an investment nature, and in the relevant years (or some of them) payments were made by the associated company for insurance, repairs, renewals, and professional fees. It was also involved in the business of holding and making of investments. It did not only hold them but also paid administration expenses and distributed dividends to its shareholders. Consequently both the holding and the making of investments constituted the carrying on of business. It also made a loan to the taxpayer company, and the activity of making that loan and receiving interest amounted to the carrying on of business. Standing back and considering the activities of the associated company as a whole, the Special Commissioner concluded that in addition to receiving its four sources of income the associated company each year paid administration expenses including remuneration; paid the expenses of managing the residential properties; and distributed its profits to the shareholders. Overall, it was carrying on business in each relevant year.
Dr N Brice: ‘It is possible that, if the only activity carried on by the associated company in this appeal, were the receipt of interest from the deposit at the bank, then this might also have been one of the exceptional cases. However, in this appeal the other three activities of the associated company point to the conclusion that it was carrying on business in the relevant years.’

Judges:

Dr N Brice

Citations:

[2002] STC (SCD) 152

Cited by:

Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Salaried Persons Postal Loans Ltd ChD 7-Apr-2006
The company had ceased trading, but rental income was still generated from its former premises. The Revenue sought to include the receipt in calculations of whether the company was entitled to a small company corporation tax rate. The Revenue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242604

Citations:

(1942) 24 TC 506

Cited by:

Approved – Sharkey v Wernher HL 1955
Where a trader takes stock from his business for private use or for use in another business which he owns, or where he transfers to his business stock which he owns in some other capacity than that of proprietor of that business, the transfer should . .
Cited – Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked whether a warehouse used to store purchases made by the company from its parent company in Austria, was an ‘industrial building or structure’. It was agreed that the facility was used for the storage of materials for use in later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.276208

When asking whether a payment of damages was a capital or income receipt, the court should ask whether the sum which the trader ought to have received have been credited as an income receipt of the trade?

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1966] 43 TC 491

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Able (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Nov-2007
The taxpayer company had received compensation for having been excluded from its business premises for a period until a compulsory purchase process failed. It treated the receipt as capital. The revenue said it was income.
Held: The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.261558

Judges:

Lord Justice Gross

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1302, [2014] STI 3235, [2014] BTC 50, [2015] STC 861

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.538195

Warehouse used purely for distribution of goods for retailer did not qualify for initial or writing down allowances since the use, although industrial, was not ancillary to the use as a retail shop.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1968 1 and 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.89018

A life insurance company which sold its ‘own purchase shares’ was not prevented by the section from reclaiming the tax credits on associated income distributions.

Citations:

Times 17-May-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 95 438(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Bibby (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 24-Jul-1999
Charges on income are not first to be deducted before computing relevant profits of a company carrying on life assurance business under the Act. This allows such companies to set such charges against the balance of profits chargeable to corporation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78388

The court considered the taxation of a sale of shares in one company called IDM to a company (FNW) and a further sale by that company to a yat another company (KDI). Held(Majority) It was right to look at each of the sales separately. The court rejected an argument by the Crown that they could be considered as an integrated transaction.
Eveleigh LJ, dissenting, upheld the argument, saying that the fact that each sale was genuine did not prevent him from regarding each as part of a whole, or oblige him to consider each step in isolation. Nor was he so prevented by the Westminster case. Looking at the scheme as a whole, and finding that the taxpayer and his sons-in-law had complete control of the IDM shares until they reached KDI, he was entitled to find that there was a disposal to KDI.

Judges:

Eveleigh LJ

Citations:

[1978] Ch. 295

Cited by:

Appeal from – Floor v Davis (Inspector of Taxes) HL 1979
The House considered whether the meaning of the phrase ‘a person having control’ extended to control by more than one person. This depended on whether the word ‘person’ in the singular was to be construed as including the plural.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.449980

The court gave the formulation for the method of computing profits for corporation tax: ‘For the purposes of Case I or II of Schedule D the profits of a trade, profession or vocation must be computed on an accounting basis which gives a true and fair view, subject to any adjustment required or authorised by law in computing profits for those purposes.’ The court rejected the argument that accounts must comply with fundamental principles of accounting additional to the best practice of accountants as embodied in the accounting standards as ‘entirely novel’.

Judges:

Sir John Pennycuick V-C

Citations:

(1970) 48 TC 257

Cited by:

Cited – Revenue and Customs v William Grant and Sons Distillers Ltd HL 28-Mar-2007
The Revenue appealed findings as to the calculation of profits for corporation tax. The companies had sought to deduct sums from profits for depreciation of unsold stock in accordance with current accounting standards.
Held: ‘the profit and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.251430

The court was asked whether the new state owned company which took over some of the assets and undertaking of Rolls Royce Ltd following its insolvency was entitled to carry forward and set against its profits the losses of the old company up to the date of its liquidation. Rolls Royce Ltd had been made up of six divisions each making different types of engines. Four of the divisions which dealt with the manufacture of aero engines were transferred to the new state owned company while the two remaining divisions which manufactured cars were transferred to a new and separate company.
Held: The state owned company did not carry on the same trade as Rolls Royce Ltd had done because it no longer manufactured cars.

Judges:

Walton J

Citations:

(1976) 51 TC 319

Cited by:

Cited – Revenue and Customs v Maco Door and Window Hardware (Uk) Ltd ChD 19-Jul-2006
The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.244481

Mr Harris, an architect, owned more than 75% of the taxpayer company. He also owned all the shares in John M Harris (Properties) Ltd. He wanted to buy a holiday home in France and was advised that the property should, for French legal reasons and especially because of the laws of inheritance, be owned by a limited company, and he decided that it should be held by Properties Ltd. It was used exclusively by Mr Harris and his family, and was never let.
Held: Properties Ltd should be disregarded for the purposes of calculating relief pursuant to section 13(4) since it had not carried on any trade or business at the relevant time. Although the main object of Properties Ltd in its Memorandum of Association was that of an investment company, it did not follow that it had carried on that business when it acquired any property. Although a company might be carrying on a business of investment even though its investments were such as to provide no income, that did not mean that a company had to be carrying on a business merely because it owned property.

Judges:

D A Shirley

Citations:

[1997] STC (SCD) 240

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – American Leaf Blending Co SDN BHD v Director-General of Inland Revenue PC 1979
(Malaysia) The taxpayer company had a cigarette making factory and a bonded warehouse for storing tobacco and cigarettes. Its business proved to be unprofitable, and it came to abandon both its manufacturing and trading businesses. It still owned . .

Cited by:

Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Salaried Persons Postal Loans Ltd ChD 7-Apr-2006
The company had ceased trading, but rental income was still generated from its former premises. The Revenue sought to include the receipt in calculations of whether the company was entitled to a small company corporation tax rate. The Revenue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.242603

The excavation and construction of 2 swimming pools in a caravan park was held to be the provision of plant, not premises or setting.

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 1398, (1974) 49 TC 514

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shove (Inspector of Taxes) v Lingfield Park 1991 Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2003
The taxpayer, a race track owner, sought to claim the cost of laying an artificial all-weather race track surface as a capital allowance. The commissioners had found that it retained a separate identity from the grass, requiring maintenance and so . .
Cited – Lingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185848

A transaction must be looked at as a whole in order to establish whether it was a genuine trading transaction eligible for tax relief, or was an action engendered solely by fiscal motives.

Citations:

[1989] 1 WLR 606

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – New Angel Court Ltd v Adam (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Jul-2003
The taxpayer company employed a subsidiary company through which it conducted its trade in land. It then sought to represent the profits from that subsidiary within its own accounts as trading profits for corporation tax purposes. The commissioner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185843

The taxpayer, a race track owner, sought to claim the cost of laying an artificial all-weather race track surface as a capital allowance. The commissioners had found that it retained a separate identity from the grass, requiring maintenance and so forth, and that therefore it was plant, not premises. The revenue appealed.
Held: The commissioners had failed to ask whether it formed part of the premises from which the company conducted its business. Without doing violence to the language, it could not be seen otherwise. It might be separately identifiable, but that did not change its character. This was not a question of fact and degree so as to bind the court to the commissioners decision, but of the meaning of the word premises as exemplified in the authorities.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Times 11-Aug-2003, Gazette 18-Sep-2003

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd 1969
Even a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of being plant. In this case a dry dock was used in trade of ship builders, ship repairers and marine engineers. . .
Cited – Cooke v Beach Station Caravans Ltd 1974
The excavation and construction of 2 swimming pools in a caravan park was held to be the provision of plant, not premises or setting. . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Scottish and Newcastle Breweries Ltd HL 4-Mar-1982
Expenditure on refurbishment, decor and fittings in hotels was held to be plant though forming part of the setting of the hotels. The House considered the interpretation of undefined expressions in fiscal legislation, such as ‘trade’, ‘income’, . .
Cited – Wimpy International Ltd v Warland 1988
Expenditure on modernising restaurants with shop fronts, floor and wall tiles, wall finishes, suspended ceilings, raised floors, fire doors and fire proofings was held not to be plant. The court asked what marks indicate that a structure premises of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185846

Yearly interest payment is treated as having been paid when it is debited to bank account.

Citations:

Times 13-Nov-1995

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 338

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.83266

Excess Profits Duty-Computation of capital-Investments made by company in other companies for the purposes of its trade-Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915 (5 A 6 Geo. V, c. 89), Sections 40 and 41, and Fourth Schedule, Part I, Rule 8, and Part III, Rule 2.

Citations:

[1923] UKHL TC – 12 – 503, [1923] AC 723

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633260

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 118

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633180

CLOSURE NOTICE – disclosure of information by taxpayer materially complete – whether reasonable to delay while HMRC make enquiries of third parties? – no (on the facts) – notice directed.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 333 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.409090

In order to convert an allowable loss into a trading loss to secure a tax advantage, it was only necessary that there had to have been an acquisition by a trading company ‘as trading stock’

Citations:

[1985] 1 WLR 193

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – New Angel Court Ltd v Adam (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Jul-2003
The taxpayer company employed a subsidiary company through which it conducted its trade in land. It then sought to represent the profits from that subsidiary within its own accounts as trading profits for corporation tax purposes. The commissioner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.185840

The taxpayer had acquire by allotment a proportion of the issued share capital of a company and later sold half back. The respondent sought to bring in to the tax return the associated receipts.
Held: The effect of section 208 was to exclude from Corporation Tax all distributions of a UK company, save those otherwise expressly provided for. The effect of the repurchase was the cancellation of the shares. For tax on chargeable gains, the word ‘disposal’ must bear its ordinary meaning (Berry). The contract was a sale of shares. Notwithstanding that upon completion the shares would be cancelled, the share sale did not give rise to a liability for Corporation Tax in respect of any capital gain realised by virtue of section 208.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton

Citations:

Times 25-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 67 (Ch), [2003] BTC 344, [2003] STI 204, [2003] STC 331

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 208

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.179791

A payment which was made in order to remove a threat of insolvency was a revenue payment and so was deductible as an expense from income for tax purposes.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jul-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82971

A company’s settlement of its tax affairs had to be dealt with in chronological order even though it would be from it’s point of view more tax efficient to have them dealt with in reverse order. No right of choice was given to a taxpayer.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 239(3)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Carr (Inspector of Taxes) v Armpledge Ltd; Same v Fielden and Ashworth Ltd CA 24-May-2000
Where a company sought to claim reliefs going back over different tax years, there was no rule requiring such reliefs to be claimed chronologically, but the company could arrange the claims against the several tax years as they best thought fit. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78911

CORPORATION TAX – application for postponement of tax under s55(6) – proceeds of tipping on land received by Applicant – evidence that beneficial owner of land was not the Applicant- whether reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant is overcharged to tax by the assessments on the tipping receipts – yes – COSTS – whether unreasonable for HMRC to defend the postponement application – no – costs under Rule 10(1)(b) refused

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 469 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.426607

UTTC Corporation tax on capital gains – scheme to generate a capital loss in reliance on the identification rules for matching a disposal of shares with an acquisition under s 106 TCGA 1992 – value shifting rules in s 30 TCGA 1992 – application of s 30(9) notwithstanding that the shares were owned at the time of the disposal, where disposal and acquisition form part of the scheme which engages s 30 – whether, in the alternative, the disposal and acquisition for the purposes of s 30(9) is determined by the computational rules required by s 106 -Davies v Hicks applied – application of s 30(5) to eliminate the capital loss’

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 124 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.509180

UTTC Corporation tax – deductibility of expenditure – sponsorship payments intended to improve fortunes of sports club – expectation of trade benefits principally as a result of recognition by others involved with the club of taxpayer’s benefaction – dual purpose of benefiting sports club and taxpayer’s trade – payments not deductible – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 74 – appeal dismissed

Judges:

Birss J

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 336 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTx – Interfish Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 13-May-2010
FTTTx Corporation tax – deductibility of expenditure – sponsorship payments intended to improve fortunes of sports club – expectation of trade benefits principally as a result of recognition by others involved . .
Appeal from – Interfish Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 4-Apr-2012
FTTTx Corporation tax – deductibility of expenditure – sponsorship payments intended to improve fortunes of sports club – expectation of trade benefits principally as a result of recognition by others involved . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Interfish Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 27-Jun-2014
The company sought to set payments it had made to support a local rugby club off against its income for Corporation Tax purposes.
Held: The appeal failed. The requirement was that the expenditure be wholly necessarily and exclusively for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.521003

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – Construction Industry Scheme – Late filing of monthly return – Whether reasonable excuse – no – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 166 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.462592

Corporation Tax – Flat-rate and tax-geared penalties for late submission of company tax returns under Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998 – whether tax return incomplete – whether Director’s report under Companies Act 1985 and Companies Act 2006 required in order for return to be complete- yes -whether company had reasonable excuse for late submission of returns -no – relevance of previous concession given by HMRC considered – whether error in HMRC witness statement in county court collection proceedings effected withdrawal of penalty- no- whether encashment by HMRC of cheques sent in by appellant settled appeals – no – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 609 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.466210

CORPORATION TAX – McNight considered – whether a penalty – yes – deductible – no – wholly and exclusively incurred – no – whether a qualifying payment for Charitable Donations Relief CTA 2010 – no – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 456 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.671536

Corporation tax – disposal of qualifying corporate bonds – disposal of debts – section 116(10) Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – held-over capital gain brought into charge – joint election under section 171A TCGA – whether disposal by repayment of the debt underlying the bonds is a disposal ‘to’ a person outside the corporate group – whether the bonds exist after the repayment of the debt and are disposed of ‘to’ the debtor – reliance on extra-statutory material for construction of relevant provisions

Citations:

[2014] UKUT 98 (TCC), [2014] STC 1440, [2014] BTC 509, [2014] STI 880

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.525875

FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – Whether sum included as a ‘bad debt’ in accounts was an allowable deduction – Whether assessable on payment made to another company in settlement of litigation – Whether expenditure incurred on business entertainment could be deducted – Whether presumption of continuity applicable to business entertainment – Appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 214 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.472795

FTTTX Corporation Tax – ‘discovery’ – alleged suppression of profit – further assessments – whether ‘to best judgement’ – whether negligent conduct by taxpayer – Yes – Appeal disallowed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 751 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.472780

Judges:

Lord Justice Newey

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1419

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Corporation Tax Act 2010

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Total E and P North Sea UK Ltd and Total Oil UK Ltd UTTC 1-May-2019
CORPORATION TAX – oil companies – supplementary charge on ring fence profits – rate change – apportionment of profits before and after rate change – section 7 Finance Act 2011 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.655370