swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Capital Gains Tax - From: 2001 To: 2001
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Fallon v Fellows (Inspector of Taxes) [2001] STC 1409
2001
ChD
Park J
Capital Gains Tax
The court considered whether a scheme was for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation in a capital gains tax context. Citing South African Supply: "In the context I think it is clear that when the learned judge referred to the persons carrying on an undertaking, he had in mind the shareholders who were carrying it on through a corporate body. He was referring to persons carrying on an undertaking in the sense of owning it, not in the sense of being involved in the management and conduct of the business operations. The basic concept is that one starts with a group of shareholders who own a business through one corporate vehicle and one ends with the same group of shareholders or substantially the same group of shareholders, who own the same business or substantially the same business still through a corporate vehicle, but now through a different corporate vehicle."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Burca v Parkinson [2001] STC 1298
2001
ChD
Park J
Capital Gains Tax
An assignment of the consideration due under a contract does not alter the capital gains tax liability of the person making the disposal.
1 Citers
Roger Stone (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Richard Henry Hitch; Thomas Henry Hitch and Ian Geoffrey Handy Times, 21 February 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1224
26 Jan 2001
CA
Arden LJ
Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management
The essence of whether a deed was a sham, was whether the deed proclaimed one set of intentions, but the parties acted out another. The deeds in this case were capable of being seen as a sham as respects one or more deeds in the combination of documents. The law did not require that every party to every deed forming part of the transaction trail should be a sham, but there must be a common intention that a deed should not take effect according to its tenor.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd; HL 15-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 14 February 2001; [2001] UKHL 6; [2001] 1 All ER 865; (2001) 73 TC 1; [2001] 2 WLR 377; [2003] 1 AC 311
Longson v HM Inspector of Taxes [2001] EWCA Civ 364
13 Mar 2001
CA
Morritt LJ VC, Robert Walker LJ
Capital Gains Tax
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.
Capital Gains Tax Act 1989 101 102
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v John Lewis Properties Ltd Times, 22 June 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 409; [2002] 1 WLR 35; [2001] STC 1118; [2001] BTC 213; [2001] STI 937
13 Jun 2001
ChD
Lightman J
Capital Gains Tax, Landlord and Tenant, Corporation Tax
A group of companies took leases from a company within the group. That company, in turn factored the right to receive the rents for five years to another company in return for a capital payment representing the discounted value of the future rent receipts. It then claimed this as a capital rather than an income receipt, and was taxable accordingly. The Commissioners asserted that it remained income. Held: The appeal failed. The case fell to be decided by the common law of tax rather than statute law. The sale was of an asset not in the course of trade and, as such, and however reluctantly, had to be held to produce a capital receipt and taxed accordingly.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Cooper v Billingham (Inspector of Taxes); Fisher v Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) Times, 16 July 2001; Gazette, 09 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1041
5 Jul 2001
CA
Aldous, Walker, Parker LJJ
Capital Gains Tax
The act provided that any payment not chargeable to income tax was to be treated as a capital payment. The settlor had created an off-shore trust in which he retained a determinable life interest, and had received unsecured and interest free loans from the trustees. The loans were repayable on demand, and it was argued that accordingly, the value actually conferred was negligible. It was held that the section created one simple answer to a huge variety of possible situations. Though artificial and not without difficulties, the construction that he had received capital payments stood, and they were taxable accordingly.
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 87(2) 97(4)
[ Bailii ]
Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Ltd and Another v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Gazette, 13 September 2001; Times, 25 September 2001; [2001] EWHC B2 (Ch); [2001] STI 1225; [2001] STC 1344; [2001] WTLR 953; [2002] BTC 178; (2000-01) 3 ITELR 846
17 Jul 2001
ChD
Potter J
Trusts, Capital Gains Tax
The claimants were beneficiaries, trustee and protector of a trust fund. In order to mitigate Capital Gains Tax liability they sought advice, and, following that advice, entered into a deed of gift in favour of the respondent charity. The deed needed to be dated in the new tax year, but was dated for the previous year. They sought a declaration that the deed was void ab initio, the directors having failed to address a relevant consideration. Held: The declaration was granted. The matters which could, if present, be taken into account, can include factors which might vitiate the intended legal effect of the deed, including the fiscal effect. It was unrealistic to divorce the several steps from each other. Trustees must consider the fiscal consequences of their acts, and a failure to do so was capable of leading to the application of "the Rule in Hastings-Bass".
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Melville and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; CA 31-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 27 September 2001; Times, 09 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1247; (2001-02) 4 ITELR 231; [2001] STC 1271; [2001] NPC 132; 74 TC 372; [2001] STI 1106; [2001] WTLR 887; [2002] 1 WLR 407; [2001] BTC 8039
HM Inspector of Taxes v Hatt [2001] EWLands TMA - 207 - 2000
13 Nov 2001
LT
Capital Gains Tax
LT CAPITAL GAINS TAX- s47(1) of Taxes Management Act 1970 - valuation of half-share in house and garden - value as a vacant house - comparables - evidential value of anonymised comparables - whether adjustment to reflect lettings - development value of rear garden - adjustment to reflect half share - whether sale prices disclosed to Inland Revenue for stamp duty purposes admissible as evidence with consent of Tribunal - Inland Revenue valuation confirmed.
Taxes Management Act 1970 47(1)
[ Bailii ]
