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: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Mansworth (Inspector of Taxes) v Jelley Times, 24 April 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002
20 Mar 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Lightman
Capital Gains Tax
The taxpayer had the benefit of option as an employee in his company scheme. He exercised the option and the issue arose as to when the base value of the options were to be valued for capital against tax purposes. The taxpayer argued that they were to be valued at the point where they were exercised, and since they were exercised at market value there would be no capital gain. The revenue contended that they were to be valued at the date they were issued, when they had a nil value. Held: The taxpayer acquired the options by reason of his employment "otherwise than by way of bargain made at arm's length". Did this affect the means of valuating the underlying shares? It did. The taxpayer was correct.
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 28 17 38 144
1 Cites
1 Citers
Jerome v Kelly (Inspector of Taxes) Times, 19 April 2002
15 Apr 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Park
Commonwealth, Capital Gains Tax
The land was owned by members of family in undivided shares. Contracts were exchanged for its sale, but the land was divided before the sale was completed. Part of the land had come to be in the ownership of trusts in Bermuda. The Inspector sought to assess the British resident taxpayer with the chargeable gain acquired by the Bermudan Trustees. Held: The provisions of s28 which deemed gains to have been acquired by others could not be used to hold a person being liable to gains tax on a gain which he did not make, and to leave other unconnected persons who had made a gain free of the tax.
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 28 60 - Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 27(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Wardhaugh (Inspector of Taxes) v Penrith Rugby Union Football Club Times, 29 May 2002; Gazette, 13 June 2002
10 May 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Ferris
Capital Gains Tax
The taxpayer had accepted a grant toward the building of a new club house. They sought rollover relief on the proceeds of sale of the former club house. The inspector sought to restrict the claim to exclude the benefit of the grant. Held: The grant was not to be taken into account. Section 50 did not apply to reduce the allowance claimed under section 152. Nothing in either section referred to the other so as to establish a link, and the case of Watton established that there was none.
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 50 152
1 Cites
Unilever (UK) Holdings Ltd v Smith (Inspector of Taxes); CA 11-Dec-2002 - Times, 22 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1787
Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes v Jelley [2002] EWCA Civ 1829
12 Dec 2002
CA
Capital Gains Tax
[ Bailii ]
Mansworth (Inspector of Taxes) v Jelley Times, 20 December 2002; Gazette, 13 March 2003
12 Dec 2002
CA
Kennedy, Chadwick, Jonathan Parker, LJJ
Capital Gains Tax
A non-resident employee had been given share options exercisable at the price of the shares on the New York Stock Exchange at the date of the grant. The Inland Revenue appealed a decision that the option was to be valued as at the date of grant, rather than at the time it was exercised. Held: Appeal dismissed. The Act provided for valuation at the date of the disposal of the asset. In this case the asset was the option, and it was to be valued at the date of the grant. The exercise of the option was not a disposal of it, but was to be treated as at one with the grant of the option.
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 137
1 Cites
1 Citers
Inland Revenue Commissioners v John Lewis Properties Ltd Times, 16 January 2003; Gazette, 13 March 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1869; [2002] 1 WLR 35
20 Dec 2002
CA
Schiemann, Arden, Dyson LJJ
Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax
The taxpayer company purchased properties to be occupied by other companies within the same group. Having granted leases, they assigned the rental income for the first six years to a bank in return for a capital payment. They then sought relief from tax, claiming to have made a part disposal, and for roll-over relief. Held: The question of whether a receipt was income or capital is not susceptible to a simple rule of general application. Here factors affecting the decision were that the disposal was of a long lasting asset, the substantial value involved, the diminution of the value of the asset (despite that being impermanent), and that only one lump sum payment was made. The payment was a capital one.
Finance Act 2000 110 - Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 21(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Jerome v Kelly (HM Inspector of Taxes) Times, 02 January 2003; Gazette, 16 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1879
20 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lady Justice Hale, Lord Justice Schiemann
Capital Gains Tax
The taxpayer had contracted for the disposal of land in three tranches. The later sales were by a Bahamian company to whom the land was assigned subject to the contract. Held: The later sales were under the original contract. That contract imposed the obligation to dispose of the land on the original contractors, the taxpayers, and under section 27(1), the effective date of the disposal was that of the contract, not the date when the obligation was performed: "where the owner of an asset contracts to convey or transfer it, and the contract is subsequently completed, the disposal of the asset for capital gains tax purposes takes place when the contractual obligation is created and not when it is performed".
Capital Gains Act 1992 27 28 46(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]