Chakravorty v Revenue and Customs: UTLC 30 Apr 2014

TAX – capital gains tax – residential premises – leasehold – value at 31 March 1982 – comparables – marriage value – share of undivided beneficial interest – value of leasehold interest determined at pounds 3,164 – appeal allowed in part

[2014] UKUT 184 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525944

Revenue and Customs v Stolkin: UTTC 9 Apr 2014

UTTC Capital Gains Tax – Relationship between Enterprise Investment Scheme relief and Taper Relief in relation to properties that had been used for both business and nonbusiness purposes, either concurrently or at different times, in the period of ownership by the taxpayer – Appeal allowed

[2014] UKUT 165 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525887

Commission v United Kingdom: ECJ 13 Nov 2014

ECJ Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU – Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement – National tax legislation – Attribution of gains to participators in close companies – Different treatment of resident and non-resident companies – Wholly artificial constructions – Proportionality

A. O Caoimh, P
C-112/14, [2014] EUECJ C-112/14, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2369, [2014] WLR(D) 483, [2014] BTC 51, [2015] STC 591, [2014] STI 3297, [2015] 1 CMLR 54
Bailii, WLRD
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 13
European

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.538756

Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr: CA 7 Apr 1993

A variation of trusts in Jersey will be deemed to have been made by the deceased – no Capital Gains Tax arising. Interpretation of deeming Provisions. The taxpayer was not a settlor in an overseas trust. Deeming provisions should not generally be read to produce an unjust or absurd result.
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘I take the correct approach in construing a deeming provision to be to give the words used their ordinary and natural meaning, consistent so far as possible with the policy of the Act and the purposes of the provisions so far as such policy and purposes can be ascertained; but if such construction would lead to injustice or absurdity, the application of the statutory fiction should be limited to the extent needed to avoid such injustice or absurdity, unless such application would clearly be within the purposes of the fiction. I further bear in mind that, because one must treat as real that which is only deemed to be so, one must treat as real the consequences and incidents inevitably flowing from or accompanying that deemed state of affairs, unless prohibited from doing so.’
Peter Gibson LJ, Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Gazette 07-Apr-1993, Ind Summary 26-Apr-1993, [1993] STC 360, (1993) 67 TC 56
Finance Act 1965 24(7) 24(11), Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 62(4) 62(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr ChD 22-Jan-1992
A payment made from an estate which had been settled overseas by means of a deed of variation was deemed to have been a payment by the settlor, and taxable as such. In interpreting a deeming provision, the court musty consider carefully as between . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr HL 30-Jun-1994
A settlor by will was deemed to have had an interest as funds were passed to a Jersey Trust. The section merely made or allowed that a variation of a will would not be a taxable event in UK law. It had no other effects. A deed of family arrangement . .
CitedJenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 16-Jun-1997
Legislation which created a clear anomaly can be interpreted so as to avoid the anomaly if the words used are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow an alternative construction.
Neuberger J discussed the case of Marshall v Kerr, saying: ‘It appears . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.83430

Jenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 16 Jun 1997

Legislation which created a clear anomaly can be interpreted so as to avoid the anomaly if the words used are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow an alternative construction.
Neuberger J discussed the case of Marshall v Kerr, saying: ‘It appears to me that the observations of Peter Gibson J, approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Marshall indicate that, when considering the extent to which one can ‘do some violence to the words’ and whether one can ‘discard the ordinary meaning’, one can, indeed one should, take into account the fact that one is construing a deeming provision. This is not to say that normal principles of construction somehow cease to apply when one is concerned with interpreting a deeming provision; there is no basis in principle or authority for such a proposition. It is more that, by its very nature, a deeming provision involves artificial assumptions. It will frequently be difficult or unrealistic to expect the legislature to be able satisfactorily to [prescribe] the precise limit to the circumstances in which, or the extent to which, the artificial assumptions are to be made.’
Neuberger J
Times 16-Jun-1997, [1997] STC 853
Finance Act 1989 138(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr CA 7-Apr-1993
A variation of trusts in Jersey will be deemed to have been made by the deceased – no Capital Gains Tax arising. Interpretation of deeming Provisions. The taxpayer was not a settlor in an overseas trust. Deeming provisions should not generally be . .
CitedMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr HL 30-Jun-1994
A settlor by will was deemed to have had an interest as funds were passed to a Jersey Trust. The section merely made or allowed that a variation of a will would not be a taxable event in UK law. It had no other effects. A deed of family arrangement . .

Cited by:
CitedHarding v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Lapsed Currency conversion option lost status
The taxpayer appealed his assessment to Capital Gains Tax on his redemption of loan notes arising following the sale of his computer company. He said that they were qualifying corporate bonds. The question was whether a security in which a currency . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC 15-Dec-2010
The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.82512

Purves (Inspector of Taxes) v Harrison: ChD 23 Nov 2000

In order to claim relief against Capital Gains tax on the disposal of business assets on retirement, the assets could be disposed of separately, but some connection must be shown to establish that they formed part of the same transaction overall. A businessman disposed of different parts of his business to different people, but in reality there was no effective same transaction. The business had been structured to allow disposals of different parts of it, and the fact that they were almost at the same time was mere co-incidence.
Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 23-Nov-2000
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 69
England and Wales

Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.85084

Taylor Clark International Ltd v Lewis (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 24 Mar 1997

Currency fluctuation losses arising from a loan to a subsidiary overseas company were not allowable against capital gains tax. The words ‘the debt on a security’ in section 117(1)can refer to an obligation to pay or repay embodied in the Loan Note, which is evidence of the right to receive payment.
Times 24-Mar-1997, [1997] STC 499
Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 117 134
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromTaylor Clark International Limited v Lewis (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 18-Nov-1998
Security exchange losses on interest-bearing loan were not to be set off against capital gains as being a debt on a security even though secured. Being simply secured itself was insufficient to make a debt a debt on a security. . .
CitedHarding v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Lapsed Currency conversion option lost status
The taxpayer appealed his assessment to Capital Gains Tax on his redemption of loan notes arising following the sale of his computer company. He said that they were qualifying corporate bonds. The question was whether a security in which a currency . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.89737

Wood v Holden (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 8 Apr 2005

The parties had entered into complex share transactions for the sale of their trading business, and sought to avoid liability for capital gains tax.
Held: Gains on disposals between members of a non-resident group of companies were exempt. The test for corporate residence was set out in De Beers Consolidated Mines. The relevant company was not a resident company under those criteria and the scheme succeeded.
Park J
[2005] EWHC 547 (Ch), Times 10-May-2005, [2005] STC 789
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDe Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Howe, Surveyor of Taxes HL 1905
The appellant Company was registered in the Cape Colony and it’s business was mining for diamonds in mines which it possessed in South Africa, and selling the diamonds there under annual contracts to a syndicate for delivery there. The Head Office . .
CitedCalcutta Jute Mills Co Ltd v Nicholson 1876
(Court of Exchequer) The residence of a company for tax purposes is decided by where the ‘central management and control’ is. . .
CitedIn Re Little Olympian Eachways Ltd ChD 29-Jul-1994
A Jersey company (Supreme) had brought a petition under the section against the company. An application was made for security for costs against Supreme. It could only be made if Supreme was resident outside the UK. Supreme argued that, despite being . .
CitedUnit Construction Co Ltd v Bullock HL 30-Nov-1959
The UK parent company owned subsidiaries incorporated in East Africa and carried on trading activities there. The managing director of the parent company concluded that ‘the situation of the African subsidiaries was becoming so serious that it was . .
CitedEsquire Nominees Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation 1971
(High Court of Australia) The company had directors who lived on Norfolk Island, but also had close connections with an Australian firm of accountants (WBBC), which evolved and implemented a tax scheme for an Australian family. The company acted as . .

Cited by:
CitedUnit Construction Co Ltd v Bullock HL 30-Nov-1959
The UK parent company owned subsidiaries incorporated in East Africa and carried on trading activities there. The managing director of the parent company concluded that ‘the situation of the African subsidiaries was becoming so serious that it was . .
Appeal fromWood and Another v Holden (HMIT) CA 26-Jan-2006
Husband and wife sold their business, arranging matters so as to avoid paying Capital Gains Tax by transferring their interest between members of a group of companies which was non-resident.
Held: The scheme was effective. The sole real issue . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.224770

De Rothschild v Lawrenson (Inspector of Taxes): CA 22 May 1995

A UK Settlor/beneficiary was liable to be taxed on distribution gains from an offshore trust.
Ind Summary 22-May-1995
Finance Act 1981 80
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromDe Rothschild v Lawrenson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 7-Dec-1993
A UK resident settlor was liable for tax on gains in a non-resident trust. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.79854

Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr: ChD 22 Jan 1992

A payment made from an estate which had been settled overseas by means of a deed of variation was deemed to have been a payment by the settlor, and taxable as such. In interpreting a deeming provision, the court musty consider carefully as between whom and for what purposes the deeming was to take effect.
Mrs K was to be regarded as the settlor because:
(1) the purpose of ss 24(7) and 24(11) Finance Act 1965 was to exclude from computation of gains any difference in value between the date of death and the date of the instrument which would otherwise be thought to accrue a person who made a deed of variation or other disposal by an instrument;
(2) those provisions were fully effective if they meant what they precisely B said but did not carry over into any further considerations of deeming than they provided; and
(3) those provisions disclosed no purpose which would lead to the conclusion that the words had wider and more effective results; in particular r there was no reason why they should be seen to be applicable in answering the question posed by s 42 of the 1965 Act, now ss 80-85 Finance Act 1981, as to whether the settlement was made by a person who was domiciled and resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom either at the date of the chargeable gains or at the date of the making of the settlement.
Gazette 22-Jan-1992, [1991] STC 686
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromMarshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr CA 7-Apr-1993
A variation of trusts in Jersey will be deemed to have been made by the deceased – no Capital Gains Tax arising. Interpretation of deeming Provisions. The taxpayer was not a settlor in an overseas trust. Deeming provisions should not generally be . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.83431

Commission v Belgium C-370/11: ECJ 10 May 2012

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement – Discriminatory taxation of capital gains realized on the redemption of shares in undertakings for collective investment established in Norway or in Iceland and not granted an authorization In accordance with Directive 85/611 / EEC
C-370/11, [2012] EUECJ C-370/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:287
Bailii
European

Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.459569

NAP Holdings UK Ltd v Whittles (Inspector of Taxes): CA 15 Jul 1993

The consideration deemed to have been given on the acquisition of shares of parent company is to be at market value not at the base price. The Acts provisions for intra group transfer of assets do not apply to oust Capital Gains rules.
Gazette 08-Dec-1993, Times 15-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 09-Aug-1993
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 273(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.84165

Charlton and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Jul 2011

Capital gains tax – whether discovery assessments were valid – whether sub-section 29(1) TMA 1970 permitted a discovery assessment to be made when no new facts or changed view of the law had emerged – how the notional officer should be considered to approach the question posed by section 29(5) TMA on the basis of the information deemed to be available to him – Appeal allowed
[2011] UKFTT 467 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.443164

Lowrie v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 May 2011

Whether the purchase and sale of a property within a short period of time was a trading activity and if not whether the nature of the Appellant’s stay in the property enabled him to qualify for principal private residence relief- appeal dismissed because during period of ownership Appellant stayed mainly in another property
[2011] UKFTT 309 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.443056

Klincke v HMRC: UTTC 7 Jul 2010

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – securities issued in exchange for shares – whether securities became qualifying corporate bonds on subsequent amendment of terms – yes – whether amendment amounted to a conversion of securities – yes – whether gain on subsequent redemption chargeable to tax – yes – appeal dismissed
[2010] UKUT 230 (TCC), [2010] STI 2349, [2010] STC 2032, [2010] BTC 1644
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 March 2021; Ref: scu.428161

Iny v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Sep 2010

FTTTX CAPITAL GAINS TAX – value of shares in private limited company – shares disposed of in 1994 – stated consideration of pounds 20,000 – whether arm’s length sale – no -tax to be based on market value of shares – TCGA 1992 ss 17, 272 -identification of market value
[2010] UKFTT 457 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 02 March 2021; Ref: scu.426581

Segesta Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 May 2010

Capital gains tax (CGT) – enterprise investment scheme (EIS) – reinvestment relief – TCGA 1992, Sch 5B – whether amount received by subscriber in relevant period was repayment of debt or payment within Sch 5B, para 13(2) – fraud or malfeasance of agent – agent acting without authority – mistake – whether shares issued were ‘eligible shares’
[2010] UKFTT 235 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.422246

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v The Scottish Provident Institution: OHCS 3 Jul 2003

The parties arranged for the issue of cross options for the purchase of gilts, which would prove when exercised to be very tax effective when a new system of taxing such transaction was in place, and planned losses could be set off against taxable gains elsewhere. The premiums were fixed by market forces, and there was a small risk that an overall loss would arise.
Lady Cosgrove And Lord Eassie And Lord President
[2003] ScotCS 188, [2003] STC 1035
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
Appeal fromInland Revenue Commissioners v Scottish Provident Institution HL 25-Nov-2004
The parties anticipated a change in the system for taxing gains on options to buy or sell bonds and government securities. An option would be purchased before the change and exercised after the change to create losses which could be set off against . .
CitedRFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland SC 5-Jul-2017
The Court was asked whether an employee’s remuneration is taxable as his or her emoluments or earnings when it is paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.190900

Segesta Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 29 May 2012

UTTC Capital Gains Tax (CGT) – Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) – reinvestment relief – TCGA 1992, Sch 5B – whether subscription for eligible shares – whether amount received by subscriber in relevant period was repayment of debt within Sch 5B -nature of conditions to be satisfied for entitlement to reinvestment relief
[2012] UKUT 176 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.462883

Klincke v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Jul 2009

FTTTx CGT – Exemption and relief – Disposal of qualifying corporate bond: (‘QCB’) – Taxpayer acquiring loan notes in exchange for shares – Loan notes not QCBs at time of acquisition – Loan notes containing currency conversion right exercisable by issuer – Right cancelled – Whether notes becoming QCBs following cancellation of issuer’s currency conversion right – TCGA 1992 s117(2)
CGT – Conversion of securities – Crystallisation of capital gain on securities while non-QCBs – Whether transaction required to cancel issuer’s currency conversion right amounted to conversion – Yes – TCGA 1992 s132
[2009] UKFTT 156 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 February 2021; Ref: scu.373702

Adams v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Apr 2009

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Disposal of shares – Majority shareholder in unquoted company – Consideration included earn-out rights – Whether valid election under TCGA 1992 s.138A – Return with computation on basis that election although no election in terms – No other possible explanation for computation – Held valid election – Appeal allowed
Neglect – No negligent conduct by agent in return – In any event TMA s.36(3) would have covered late election at appeal
[2009] UKFTT 80 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.373593

Davies and Another v Revenue and Customs: CA 11 Apr 2008

[2008] EWCA Civ 497
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDavies and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 16-Feb-2010
The parties disputed the interpretation of a booklet issued by the Revenue (IR20) as it defined the phrase ‘ordinarily resident’. In particular the taxpayer complained of an unannounced change of practice made after they had arranged their lives . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.269966

Drummond v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 5 Jul 2007

SCIT CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Computation of gain – Second hand life assurance policy – Surrender proceeds brought into computation of chargeable event gain for income tax – Whether surrender proceeds to be excluded as disposal consideration for CGT purposes – No – TCGA 1992 s37(1)
CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Acquisition consideration – Wholly and exclusively for the acquisition of the asset – Second hand life assurance policies acquired for andpound;210,000 above surrender value as part of tax avoidance scheme – Whether entire consideration incurred for acquisition of the policies or as part of pre-ordained tax avoidance scheme – Whether alternatively the andpound;210,000 was consideration for acquisition of the policies – No – Appeal dismissed – TCGA s.38(1)
[2007] UKSPC SPC00617, [2007] STI 1818, [2007] STC (SCD) 682
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 February 2021; Ref: scu.259271

Eyretel Unapproved Pension Scheme and others v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 12 Nov 2008

SCIT CAPITAL GAINS TAX – tax avoidance scheme – whether subscription for shares followed by the return of the subscription money by way of dividend (by an unlimited company), followed by disposal of the shares for a nominal amount five months after the subscription was a self-cancelling composite transaction – yes – whether HMRC can tax the settlor on the trustees’ gain under s 77 TCGA 1992 when the did not open an enquiry into the trustees’ return which claimed an offsetting loss – yes – whether (assuming that the dividend had not been ignored as part of the composite transaction) the settlor was taxable on the dividend under s 660A Taxes Act 1988 – no – or whether the trustees were taxable on it under s 686 – no.
[2008] UKSPC SPC00718
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 660A
England and Wales

Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.278760

Fd Fenston Will Trusts v Revenue and Customs: SCIT 7 Feb 2007

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Computation of gains – Expenditure – Shares – Capital contributions to Delaware Company – Whether incurred ‘on the asset’ – Yes – Whether reflected in the state or nature of the asset the time of disposal – No – Appeal dismissed – TCGA 1992 s.38(1)(b)
[2007] UKSPC SPC00589
Bailii

Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.251319

Foulser v HM Inspector of Taxes: SCIT 22 Feb 2005

CAPITAL GAINS TAX – shareholder giving shares in private company to a company held within an insurance bond – whether the former shareholder and the insurance company were connected persons as acting together to secure or exercise control of the donee company with the result that s 167 TCGA 1992 prevents hold-over relief on the gift of shares from applying – yes – appeal dismissed
[2005] UKSPC SPC00462
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal FromFoulser and Another v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 20-Dec-2005
The taxpayer company entered into an arrangement in which shares were purchased by a company based in Ireland and resold. A claim was made for holdover relief.
Held: The scheme failed. The restriction imposed did not infringe the right of . .
At CommissionersFoulser and Another v Macdougall CA 17-Jan-2007
The taxpayers sought relief after giving shares in a company to another company owned by themselves. The taxpayers appealed refusal of hold over relief in respect of chargeable gains.
Held: The holdings in the recipient company made the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.229938

HM Inspector of Taxes v Hatt: LT 13 Nov 2001

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.
[2001] EWLands TMA – 207 – 2000
Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 47(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 23 January 2021; Ref: scu.225687

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 viewed the arrangement as window dressing to maximise claims of expenditure against income.
Held: The rule required a company to show that the subsidiary had been acquired as trading stock, but any fiscal motive was irrelevant. A transaction might be ineffective where it was inexplicable save on fiscal grounds looked at as a whole. The asset had to be acquired in order to be sold in the normal course of trade and for profit. In the end it was a matter of fact for the commissioners. In this case they had directed themselves correctly in law, looking at the group as a whole. Appeal dismissed.
Lawrence Collins J
Times 08-Aug-2003, [2003] EWHC 1876 (Ch), Gazette 02-Oct-2003
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
CitedReed v Nova Securities Ltd 1985
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’ . .
CitedCoates v Arndale Properties Ltd 1984
A transaction might be so clearly inspired by fiscal considerations that its shape and character as a trading transaction would be insufficient to preserve its tax value as such. . .
CitedOverseas Containers (Finance Ltd) v Stoker 1989
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. . .
CitedEnsign 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.
Cited by:
Appealed toNew Angel Court Ltd v Danny Adam (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 16-Mar-2004
The taxpayer company had acquired an asset from a company within the same group. It had been treated as trading stock. The inspector sought to deny transfer of the resulting trading loss between the companies.
Held: The claim and appeal was to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.185839

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Daffurn: ChD 24 Jun 1993

A farmer, anticipating retirement, applied for and obtained planning permission for the development of land on his farm. He ran down the farming on that land, and applied for relief upon retirement.
Held: Retirement relief should be denied to him, since at the time of his retirement, the land no longer formed part of the farm he was running.
Gazette 08-Sep-1993, Times 24-Jun-1993, Ind Summary 12-Jul-1993
Finance Act 1985 69
England and Wales

Updated: 24 December 2020; Ref: scu.84664

Wardhaugh (Inspector of Taxes) v Penrith Rugby Union Football Club: ChD 10 May 2002

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.
Mr Justice Ferris
Times 29-May-2002, Gazette 13-Jun-2002
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 50 152
Citing:
CitedWatton (Inspector of Taxes) v Tippett CA 27-Jun-1997
Proceeds of the sale of part of a business which had been invested back into the business cannot be rolled over into the acquisition cost of remainder. . .
Times 27-Jun-97, [1997] STC 893

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.171304

Cooper v Billingham (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 10 Feb 2000

Where a UK resident created an offshore settlement under which he was a member of the class of potential beneficiaries, and the trust made loans to him which did not carry interest and where no request was in fact made for repayment over long periods, the loan amounted to a capital payment under the act as a ‘transfer of an asset and the conferring of any other benefit’ and so was chargeable to Capital Gains Tax.
Gazette 10-Feb-2000, Times 25-Feb-2000
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 87, 97

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.79479

Dunlop International Ag v Pardoe (Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Oct 1999

Where a company ceased to be resident in the UK, and there was deemed as a result to be a transfer of shares between companies within the group, that transfer gave rise to a chargeable gain which was chargeable to Corporation Tax.
Times 05-Oct-1999
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 178
England and Wales

Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.80173

Schuldenfrei v Hilton (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 25 Feb 1998

A taxpayer’s inactive acquiescence in an inspector’s mistaken acceptance did not create an agreement which could restrain correction of the error.
References: Times 25-Feb-1998
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 54
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Schuldenfrei v Hilton (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) CA 16-Jul-1999
    Where an inspector issued an assessment to tax, but mistakenly completed it to say that no tax was payable, and the taxpayer did nothing to indicate reliance upon it, there was no agreement between the taxpayer and the inspector such as would . .
    (Times 12-Aug-99, Gazette 02-Sep-99, [1999] EWCA Civ 1869)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Schuldenfrei v Hilton (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) CA 16-Jul-1999
    Where an inspector issued an assessment to tax, but mistakenly completed it to say that no tax was payable, and the taxpayer did nothing to indicate reliance upon it, there was no agreement between the taxpayer and the inspector such as would . .
    (Times 12-Aug-99, Gazette 02-Sep-99, [1999] EWCA Civ 1869)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89052

Plumbly and Others v Spencer (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 4 Mar 1997

Retirement relief is restricted to assets actually used within a family business.
References: Gazette 05-Mar-1997, Times 04-Mar-1997
Statutes: Finance Act 1985 69(2)(b) 70(7)
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.84776

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.
References: Times 07-Apr-1999
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Roger Stone (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Richard Henry Hitch; Thomas Henry Hitch and Ian Geoffrey Handy CA 26-Jan-2001
    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 . .
    (Times 21-Feb-01, Gazette 01-Mar-01, , [2001] EWCA Civ 1224)
  • Appeal from – 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 . .
    (, [2001] EWCA Civ 63, [2001] STC 214)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.81395

Goodwin v Curtis (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 14 Aug 1996

Capital Gains Tax relief for a private residence was lost where no permanent occupation was established.
References: Times 14-Aug-1996
Statutes: Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 101
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Charles Paul Goodwin v Michael Curtis (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 18-Feb-1998
    The occupation of a property as an ‘own or main residence’ is a question of fact and degree and ordinary usage. In this case, five weeks occupation by the taxpayer was insufficient to establish the exemption. . .
    (Times 02-Mar-98, Gazette 25-Mar-98, , [1998] EWCA Civ 271, (1998) 70 TC 478)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.80920

Inland Revenue v Walker: HL 3 Dec 1914

A tenement was valued, under the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, as at 30th April 1909, the original total value pounds 400, the original assessable site value pounds 20, pounds 380 being the deduction made for buildings. In June 1911 the property was sold by a widow to her brother-in-law, a man up in years, who had long lived and carried on a draper’s business there. The price paid was pounds 650. Nothing admittedly had occurred calculated to affect the value of the buildings or the site since April 1909. The Inland Revenue claimed increment value duty on pounds 250, viz., on the pounds 650 less the pounds 380 which had been allowed for buildings in the original valuation, and less pounds 20, the original assessable site value. A referee being of opinion that the property had not altered in value since April 1909, but that the figures then taken were too low, made a new valuation, the total value pounds 470, the deduction for buildings pounds 400, the assessable site value pounds 70. As regarded the price obtained, he, purporting to act under section 25 4 ( d), deducted pounds 180, which he stated must be attributed to some personal consideration, bringing out the occasional site value at pounds 70.
Held (1) that the case being ruled by the English case of Lumsden v. Inland Revenue (v. infra) the deduction for buildings on the occasion of sale was pounds 400, the ‘like deductions’ in section 2 (2) ( a) meaning deductions ascertained by the same method as in the original valuation- i.e., by obtaining a gross value and total value by valuation and not by reference merely to the purchase price, which might or might not correspond with open market value; and (2) that no deduction for personal matters fell to be made, as that did not arise on the facts, the referee merely surmising, not finding as a fact, that part of the purchase price was due to personal matters. Increment value duty was consequently due on pounds 230, i.e., on pounds 650, less pounds 400 for buildings, and less pounds 20, the original assessable site value.
References: [1914] UKHL 151
Links: Bailii
Judges: Earl Loreburn, Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker, Lord Sumner, and Lord Parmoor
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620734

Pidcock v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jul 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other – Capital Gains Tax – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax returns – whether reasonable excuse – whether ignorance of law an excuse – no – appeal dismissed
References: [2018] UKFTT 376 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619377

Bradshaw and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jul 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other – – non-resident CGT return – penalty of pounds 100 for failure to file return within 30 days of completion of house sale – whether error in notice of assessment as to period in paragraph 18(1)(c) Schedule 55 FA 2009 makes assessment invalid: no, s 114(1) TMA applies – whether date of disposal correctly shown on return: no – whether HMRC have shown penalty due: yes – whether reliance on third party reasonable excuse: yes – whether ignorance of law reasonable excuse: yes, following Perrin in Upper Tribunal – whether UK/Canada DTA applies – appeal allowed.
References: [2018] UKFTT 368 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619367

Scowcroft v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jun 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : CAPITAL GAINS TAX – non-resident CGT return – penalty of pounds 100 for failure to file return within 30 days of completion of house sale – whether error in notice of assessment as to period in paragraph 18(1)(c) Schedule 55 FA 2009 makes assessment invalid: no, s 114(1) TMA applies – whether HMRC have shown penalty due: yes – whether reliance on third party reasonable excuse: yes – whether ignorance of law reasonable excuse: yes, following Perrin in Upper Tribunal – appeal allowed.
References: [2018] UKFTT 295 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619360

Haworth, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: Admn 23 May 2018

The claimant challenged the decisions of the Commissioners to issue him in 2016 with a follower notice and an accelerated payment notice in relation to gains arising to the trustees of a settlement from the disposal of assets during the 2000-2001 assessment year.
References: [2018] EWHC 1271 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Cranston J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.618107

Davies v The Commissioners for Hm Revenue and Customs: UTTC 30 Apr 2018

Capital Gains Tax – Unapproved Employee Share Options – grantor having discretion on exercise of option to satisfy option holder’s entitlement either by transfer of shares or payment of cash – whether s 144ZA TCGA disapplies the market value rule in s 17(1) TCGA
References: [2018] UKUT 130 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.616365

Hart v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Apr 2018

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Late Filing of Non-Resident Capital Gains Tax Returns – penalties – late filing of non-resident capital gains tax returns – whether reasonable excuse – whether ignorance of law an excuse – no – whether failure by tax adviser to alert taxpayer of need to make return an excuse – yes – appeal allowed
References: [2018] UKFTT 207 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.609275

Hashmi and Others v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Computation): FTTTx 8 Jan 2018

FTTTx Capital Gains Tax – discovery assessments – penalties – whether or not there was a chargeable capital gain in 2008/2009 – yes – whether or not the assessments should be reduced further than as already amended – no – whether or not the inaccuracies were deliberate but not concealed – yes – whether or not the disclosure was prompted – yes – appeals dismissed
References: [2018] UKFTT 12 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.602934

Aslam v Revenue and Customs (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs): FTTTx 4 Dec 2017

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Appeal against assessment and penalty – Whether expenditure incurred – Whether expenditure for enhancing the value of or defending title to or rights over the asset (s 38 TCGA)
References: [2017] UKFTT 860 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 November 2020; Ref: scu.600991

McGreevy v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Sep 2017

Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other – CAPITAL GAINS TAX – non-resident CGT return – penalties of Apounds 1,600 for failure to file return within 30 days of completion of house sale – whether disposal in 2015-16: not proved, so penalties not due – alternatively, whether assessment met requirements of paragraph 18 Schedule 55 FA 2009: no, but s 118 TMA applies – whether paragraph 4 Schedule 55 penalties properly imposed: no, Donaldson applies and no paragraph 4(1)(b) HMRC decision – whether reasonable excuse: yes – whether special circumstances decision by HMRC flawed: yes – decision that there were special circumstances substituted – penalties cancelled.
References: [2017] UKFTT 690 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 12 November 2020; Ref: scu.598980

Longson v Baker (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 5 Dec 2000

The test of whether land attached to a private dwelling in excess of a half hectare, was required for the reasonable enjoyment of the property was an objective one. The individual circumstances and requirements of the taxpayer should not affect the assessment. In this case, although the residence included stabling, land used for the horses stabled was not to be included. The keeping of horses was not an essential part of the use of the house as a residence.
References: Times 05-Dec-2000, Gazette 18-Jan-2001
Statutes: Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 222
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Longson v Baker (Inspector of Taxes) SCIT 8-May-2000 (, [2000] UKSC SPC00238)
    SCIT CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Private residence exemption – Whether gain on sale of house exempt – Extent of ‘the permitted area’ – Section 222 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Longson v HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Mar-2001 (, [2001] EWCA Civ 364)
    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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 12 November 2020; Ref: scu.83186

Fim Santander Top 25 Euro Fi (Articles 63 Tfeu And 65 TFEU): ECJ 10 May 2012

ECJ Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU – Undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS) – Different treatment of dividends paid to non-resident UCITS, subject to withholding tax, and dividends paid to resident UCITS, not subject to such tax – Whether it is necessary, for the purpose of determining whether the national measure is in conformity with the free movement of capital, to take account of the situation of shareholders – No such need
References: [2012] EUECJ C-338/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:286
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 09 November 2020; Ref: scu.584359

Blackwell v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 6 Apr 2017

The court was asked whether a taxpayer may, in computing the gain accruing to him on the disposal of shares, bring into account by way of deduction expenditure incurred by him in buying his release from a personal contractual obligation to a third party restrictive of his ability to vote or sell those shares.
References: [2017] EWCA Civ 232
Links: Bailii
Judges: Longmore, Patten, Briggs LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 05 November 2020; Ref: scu.581427

Reeves v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Feb 2017

FTTTx (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Exemptions and Reliefs) CAPITAL GAINS TAX – Gift of business asset to UK-resident company by transferor with non-UK resident relatives – Hold-over relief claim disallowed by HMRC – Whether claim precluded by s 167 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – Yes – Whether construction of s 167 conforming with ECHR and EU law – Yes – Appeal dismissed
References: [2017] UKFTT 192 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 31 October 2020; Ref: scu.578537

Knight v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Computation) CAPITAL GAINS TAX – asset purchased with, and sold for, Swiss Francs – computation of gain – rule in Bentley v Pike and Capcount Trading followed – Liechtenstein disclosure facility – amount of penalty chargeable
References: [2016] UKFTT 819 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 October 2020; Ref: scu.573991

Crossley v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Capital Gains Tax/Taxation of Chargeable Gains : Other) Capital Gains Tax – late payment penalty – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – whether reasonable excuse – insufficiency of funds -whether outwith his control- yes – appeal allowed in part
References: [2016] UKFTT 810 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 October 2020; Ref: scu.573977