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.
Judges:
Arden LJ
Citations:
Times 21-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1224
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Hitch and Others v Stone (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 7-Apr-1999
A tax avoidance scheme was effective despite being complex and artificial. The documents affected third party rights in potential development land, and it was impossible to conclude it was a sham. . .
See Also – Stone (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Hitch and others CA 26-Jan-2001
As an exception to the general rule, it is not invariably necessary to show, in relation to multi party transactions, that every party to it knew it was a sham.
Arden LJ said: ‘Third, the fact that the act or document is uncommercial, or even . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Capital Gains Tax, Taxes Management
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147411
