Corporation Tax – Scheme to generate an allowable capital loss of pounds 200 million in reliance on the identification rule of section 106 TCGAct 1994 for matching a disposal with a later acquisition – Whether Ramsay principle undermined the disposal – whether section 30 TCGAct 1994 diminished the loss on a contention that, even disregarding the identification rule, the disposal was nevertheless a disposal of shares acquired after the disposal, rather than a disposal of the shares in fact owned at the time of the disposal, in order to bring section 30 into operation by virtue of section 30(9) – whether in the alternative section 30(9) was brought into operation in reliance on the identification rule, or whether this analysis was precluded by the decision of the Special Commissioners and Park J. in Davies v. Hicks – whether, if section 30 applied, the allowable loss should be diminished or diminished to nil, notwithstanding that the result of disallowing the loss in full would be to leave the Appellant with a latent chargeable gain of pounds 200 million – Appeal dismissed
Citations:
[2011] UKFTT 599 (TC), [2012] SFTD 215
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Corporation Tax
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.449571