1. finance
2. personal finance
3. financial planning
4. retirement and pension

>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Comment
PM-Tax
Wednesday 8 October 2014
News and Views from the Pinsent Masons Tax team
In this Issue
Our Comment
•Comments on the tax policies announced at the party conferences by Catherine Robins
•CJEU judgment in Skandia – VAT now due on transactions between branches of the same legal entity? by Darren Mellor-Clark
2
•Income tax repayments on ‘clawed back’ bonuses by Graeme Standen
Recent Articles
•What is an unallowable purpose? by Heather Self
•Highlights from our 2014 Share Plans Roadshow by Matthew Findley and Suzannah Crookes
8
13
Our perspective on recent cases
Procedure
Hargreaves v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0395 (TCC)
Lady Henrietta Pearson v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 890 (TC)
Substance
The Executors for JJ Leadley (dec’d) v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 892 (TC)
HMRC v Sportech PLC & Ors. [2014] UKUT 0398 (TCC)
Taylor Clark Leisure PLC v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0396 (TCC)
Cross v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 907 (TC)
Events
19
People
20
NEXT
@PM_Tax
© Pinsent Masons LLP 2014
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Comment
The tax policies announced at the
party conferences
by Catherine Robins
With the general election only seven months away, the tax policies announced by the three main
political parties at their annual party conferences are of particular interest this year. We therefore
look at what has been announced.
Labour
Ed Miliband told Labour’s annual conference that a future Labour
government would conduct a “coordinated crackdown against tax
avoidance” by closing ‘loopholes’ allowing hedge funds and
employers of temporary workers to pay less tax. The party has also
proposed a new ‘mansion tax’ on homes worth over £2m, and a new
‘windfall’ tax on tobacco that would raise money for the NHS.
£2m. Under their proposals a property worth £3m would face a
charge of £10,000 a year. It is not clear whether Labour’s proposals
would involve similar charges.
Labour also pledged to scrap the ‘shares for rights’ scheme. This is
the employee shareholder equity-linked employment contract
which was introduced in September 2013 and allows workers to
give up some of their employment rights in exchange for shares in
the companies that they work for.
The party also plans to crack down on ‘umbrella’ schemes used to
employ temporary workers avoiding their tax and national
insurance liabilities, and to close the ‘quoted eurobond exemption’.
Ed Milliband announced that Labour would “reverse the tax cut for
hedge funds”. This is believed to be a reference to the 0.5 per cent
stamp duty reserve tax charge levied on the managers of UKdomiciled unit trusts and open ended investment companies when
investors sell or “surrender” units in their funds, which was
abolished from 1 April. Commentators in the funds industry have
suggested that far from being a charge on hedge funds, this tax will
be passed on to investors and therefore would effectively be borne
by ordinary investors and those with pension funds.
The quoted eurobond exemption was introduced in 1984 as a way
of encouraging international investment into the UK. It allows
overseas investors to receive the interest on loans made to
companies without the deduction of a 20% withholding tax
payable to HMRC, provided that the security is listed on a
recognised stock exchange as designated by HMRC. An HMRC
consultation in 2012 proposed that this exemption would not
apply where the eurobond is issued to a fellow group company and
listed on a stock exchange on which there is no substantial or
regular trading in the eurobond. The responses to the consultation
raised significant concerns that the proposed changes could
damage London’s position as a leading financial centre, and so the
current government decided not to proceed with them. It is not
clear precisely how Labour proposes to close the ‘loophole’ and
there are concerns that an anti avoidance measure could go wider
than is necessary.
Labour also restated its promise to reintroduce a 50p rate of
income tax for earnings over £150,000 and to bring back the 10p
starting rate of income tax. The 10p starting tax rate will be paid
for by abolishing the government’s married tax allowance.
Although, if this is the case, the 10p band is likely to be very small.
Labour has also previously said that it would scrap the planned cut
in corporation tax from 21% to 20% due to take place in April 2015
to fund reductions in business rates for small firms.
Labour claims that its proposed ‘mansion tax’ would raise £1.2
billion from homes worth more than £2m. Shadow Chancellor Ed
Balls said that this would be done in “a fair, sensible and
proportionate way”. He said that the limit would be raised each
year in line with average rises in house prices and protections
would be put in place “for those who are asset rich but cash poor”.
He said Labour would ensure “those with properties worth tens of
millions of pounds make a significantly bigger contribution than
those in houses just above the limit”. It is not clear how Labour’s
mansion tax would operate. In 2010 the Liberal Democrats
proposed a mansion tax based on 1% of a property’s value above
Heather Self says:
“The announcements are tinkering around the edges of the tax
system rather than setting out a strategic vision of how a Labour
government would run the UK tax system. The policies would add
complexity and would be unlikely to raise the revenue predicted by
politicians. Windfall taxes, such as that proposed for the tobacco
industry, are a dangerous tool as they introduce uncertainty into
the corporate tax system. As this tax would almost certainly be
passed on to consumers, a much simpler measure would be to
increase the rate of duty on tobacco products.”
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
2
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Comment
The tax policies announced at the party conferences (continued)
Ray McCann says:
Heather Self says:
“Unilateral moves in advance of BEPS being finalised could damage
the UK. The Chancellor may be intending to strengthen the UK’s anti
treaty abuse rules and its rules to prevent ‘double non-taxation’ in
the case of hybrids. However, it is crucial that the UK gets this right
as the UK finance industry could be damaged if the UK unilaterally
imposes rules which are impossible to implement in practice. The UK
should lead but only when we are sure others will follow!
“There is now general recognition that simply introducing a tax
on property is unlikely to raise the expected level of tax and
would be difficult to implement fairly. A mansion tax would
inevitably be seen as a tax that does not properly correlate to
ability to pay which will cause considerable uncertainty to those
affected by it and would introduce further complexity in
measuring the likely tax yield.
There is also a question over how much of what is announced in the
December Autumn Statement will actually become law before
May’s general election. The reality may well be that the majority of it
will get deferred until after the election.”
It is clear that the UK tax system has become over-reliant on
taxing work - that is, employees and employers - it is unlikely that
on its own a mansion tax as proposed would raise very significant
revenue in the overall scheme of things and the cost of collection
would be greater. This would be especially true in those parts of
the south east and London where property prices are often
disproportionate to income. A much fuller understanding of what
any new tax would raise - and, more importantly, what economic
and social impact any such tax would cause - would need to be
undertaken.”
The Chancellor also announced that from April 2015 defined
contribution pension savers will be able to pass on any unused
pension funds to a nominated beneficiary when they die without
those funds being subject to a 55% tax charge.
Liberal Democrats
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has warned that taxes “must”
be increased after the next general election to cut the deficit. Vince
Cable told the Liberal Democrat conference. “Any politician who
tells you that the next government can balance the budget and
avoid tax increases is lying to you.”
Conservatives
With the Chancellor’s Autumn statement scheduled for 3
December, very little was announced on tax at the Conservative
party conference.
However, in his closing speech to the conference, David Cameron
said that he wanted to raise the tax-free personal allowance from
£10,000 to £12,500. He also announced that the threshold for the
40p income tax rate would be raised from £41,900 to £50,000
under a future Conservative government. It is not clear how these
proposals would be funded.
Mr Clegg confirmed the previously announced Liberal Democrat
policy to introduce a “mansion tax” on properties valued at over £2m
through new council tax bands. He said that the money raised would
go towards reducing the deficit.
Danny Alexander announced that the Liberal Democrats would cut
the lifetime allowance on pensions tax relief to £1m from £1.25m to
fund a £1bn investment in the NHS. The limit fell to £1.25m in April
2014. However, the party appears to have abandoned its earlier
proposal to limit tax relief on pensions contributions to basic rate tax.
Chancellor George Osborne said that “some technology companies
go to extraordinary lengths to pay little or no tax here” and
announced that the Government would “put a stop” to this. The
detail of what changes are proposed will be announced in the
Autumn Statement. This change has been nicknamed a “Google
tax” by some commentators and is believed to be a measure to
tackle the use of “double Irish” and “Dutch sandwich” structures
used by some technology companies. These involve the use of tax
havens to shelter profits deriving from outside the US from the
exploitation of intellectual property rights. The OECD’s Base
Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project is looking at ways in
which the international tax system can be reformed to prevent
such structures being effective. The project is halfway through and
is due to be completed in the next 18 months.
The Liberal Democrats would also increase the rate of tax on dividends
for additional rate (45%) taxpayers. Like Labour, they would end the
“shares for rights” employment scheme where workers can sacrifice
certain employment rights in exchange for company shares and would
abolish the married tax allowance. The married tax allowance will
come into force from 2015 and will allow one spouse to transfer up to
£1,050 of their unused personal tax allowance to their spouse. It will
not apply to higher rate taxpayers.
Catherine Robins is the Tax team’s technical
partner, providing technical assistance to
clients and members of the team on all areas
of corporate tax including corporate finance
and M&A work, private equity, employment
tax and property tax.
E: catherine.robins@pinsentmasons.com
T: +44 (0)121 625 3054
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
3
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Comment
CJEU judgment in Skandia – VAT now due on
transactions between branches of the same
legal entity?
by Darren Mellor-Clark
Until now many businesses have sheltered from VAT transactions and recharges occurring between
the head office and branches of the same legal entity on the basis that they occur between
establishments of the same legal entity. The CJEU has ruled that where a branch is a member of a
VAT group, such treatment is not applicable. There is now a clear and present risk that VAT is due on
such transactions. Key areas likely to be impacted are outsourced and off-shored services, along
with shared service centres.
Background
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its FCE Bank
judgment (C-201/04) confirmed that transactions occurring
between a head office and a branch are not subject to VAT, in as far
as the branch is not an independent taxable person. Many
commentators, including the European Commission, had always
pointed out that this judgment did not address the position where
the branch is a member of a VAT group.
There were two key components to the CJEU’s judgment, which
were as follows:
•The supply of externally purchased IT services from SAC to
Skandia Sverige is a transaction subject to VAT. This is due to the
effect of forming the VAT group of which Skandia Sverige is a
member. The formation of a VAT group creates, for VAT purposes,
a new taxable person which is an amalgam of all its members.
Therefore, for VAT purposes, the branch was no longer the same
taxable person as the head office. On that basis the services were
within the scope of VAT.
The CJEU was asked to address that very point in the reference
from Sweden regarding Skandia (Case C-7/13).
•The second element concerned whether the liability to account for
the VAT due was for SAC as supplier or Skandia Sverige/the VAT
group as recipient. The court held that as the services were deemed
to be supplied to the VAT group, then it was for the VAT group to
account for the VAT due in Sweden on a reverse charge basis.
The Skandia judgment
Skandia is a global insurance business with establishments in many
locations around the globe.
Skandia America Corp Inc (SAC) was established in the United
States with a branch in Sweden. That branch was a member of a
Swedish VAT group (Skandia Sverige), along with several local
subsidiaries. SAC purchased IT services from external suppliers
which it then distributed to various Skandia companies. Sverige
took the external services and processed them to produce the
services required by the Skandia group, which were collectively
referred to as “IT production”. The IT production was then supplied
to various companies inside and outside of the VAT group, it was
charged at cost plus 5%.
Implications for UK businesses
The case clearly has an impact across the whole of the EU.
However, this note considers the position in the UK as there are
some key differences which could impact implementation of the
judgment.
The UK’s view of VAT grouping is fundamentally different from that
in Sweden. The UK practice is to hold that once a legal entity
qualifies for membership of a UK VAT group then VAT group
treatment extends to all of the establishments of that entity
across the globe. Conversely, Sweden allows membership only to
those establishments located in Sweden.
The supplies between the VAT group members were disregarded
from a VAT perspective, as was the cost allocation (supported by
internal invoices) between SAC and Skandia Sverige. The Swedish
tax authority challenged the disregard between SAC and
Skandia Sverige.
Therefore in the UK the Skandia situation, theoretically, could not
have arisen. Under UK law, SAC would already have been deemed
to be a member of the UK VAT group along with Skandia Sverige.
On that basis the supply/allocation of the external IT supplies
would have been disregarded as a supply occurring between VAT
group members rather than a head office to branch supply.
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
4
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Comment
CJEU judgment in Skandia (continued)
The UK has historically recognised the potential VAT leakage which
this legal interpretation causes and so created anti-avoidance rules
to cover this situation, which require (subject to certain conditions)
VAT to be accounted for on the external element but not internally
generated costs.
The lack of such anti-avoidance rules in Sweden forced
consideration of the issue via a very binary route: essentially
should such transactions be subject to VAT or not? The presence of
a fiscal “safety valve” such as the anti-avoidance rules detailed
above may well have led the court to a different decision. Indeed
such a possibility was articulated in the opinion of the Advocate
General, but not followed by the court.
The key question must be how HMRC will implement this decision
in the UK? The initial, informal, indications from HMRC have been
that it will consider the position carefully (along with appropriate
legal advice) and it is unlikely to seek to apply any changes on a
retrospective basis. It is likely that any attempt to change HMRC’s
previous policy and approach would be prevented due to the
taxpayer’s legitimate expectation created by HMRC’s previous
approach. However, this remains to be seen and we expect
guidance to be issued in due course.
Given the UK’s different legal interpretation of VAT groups, it may
well be that implementation of the decision could be avoided
altogether on the basis that the facts do not apply. Such an
approach by the UK would, we consider, carry significant risk of
infraction proceedings by the Commission. Whether the UK has the
political will for such a fight in light of its other disputes with the
EU and the promised “in/out referendum” remains to be seen.
Until HMRC’s guidance is released businesses would be best
advised not to alter the treatment of such transactions in light of
Skandia. However, consideration of the likely impacts may be
prudent. In particular, consideration of the extent to which the
various exemptions may apply would be helpful.
Darren Mellor-Clark is a Partner (non-lawyer) in
our indirect tax advisory practice and advises
clients with regard to key business issues
especially within the financial services,
commodities and telecoms sectors. In
particular he has advised extensively on the
indirect tax implications arising from regulatory
and commercial change within the FS sector,
for example: Recovery and Resolution Planning;
Independent Commission on Banking; UCITS IV;
and the Retail Distribution Review.
E: darren.mellor-clark@pinsentmasons.com
T: +44 (0)20 7054 2743
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
5
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Comment
Income tax
repayments on
‘clawed back’
bonuses
by Graeme Standen
A recent decision of the Upper Tribunal suggests that employees who pay income tax on a bonus that
is later ‘clawed back’ by the employer may be entitled to tax relief. This may make contractual
clawback provisions more appealing to those employers that had previously rejected or limited them
because of the tax consequences.
In the case of HMRC v Julian Martin [2014] UKUT 0429 (TCC) the
Upper Tribunal found that Julian Martin had “negative general
earnings” when he repaid part of a signing bonus in a later tax year,
after the full amount received had been taxed in the year of
receipt. This meant that Martin was entitled to claim employment
loss relief.
parties would fall within this category if that payment had “the
attributes of positive taxable earnings ... with suitable
adjustments”. The payment would have to arise directly from the
employment and not for some other reason, the tribunal judge
said. On the circumstances of this case, the repayment of the
bonus could be classed as negative taxable earnings and so
employment loss relief could apply to general income.
Martin and another individual had been employed by a company,
JLT Risk Solutions, which late in 2005 required them to sign new
employment contracts with a view to tying them to the company
for at least five years. The contract included a £250,000 “signing
bonus”, with an obligation to repay a time-apportioned proportion
of the amount if the employment relationship ended before the
five-year period was up.
The judge also explained two points that did not apply to the facts
of the case, but may be useful in other circumstances:
•Employee repayments that are negative general earnings might
reduce positive general earnings, but not below zero. There would
then be no possibility of employment loss relief of general
income, but instead the employee might benefit from a reduction
of employment income tax. This would happen where general
earnings were also received by the employee (from the same
employment) in the same tax year, and the net earnings amount
was positive.
In November 2005, Martin received his first salary payment as well
as the £250,000 bonus. Both were treated as ‘emoluments’ subject
to income tax and employee national insurance contributions
(NICs). The effect was that Martin received a net bonus payment
of £147,500. In August 2006, Martin gave JLT formal notice of his
intended resignation. As a result, he became liable to repay
£162,500 of the bonus, which he did. Martin then brought a claim
against HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for tax relief.
•The repayment by the employee could be to the paying employer,
or to the third party who had made general earnings payments,
as long as the amount would count as negative general earnings
under the test set out in the decision (applying Shilton v
Wilmshurst [1991] 1 AC 684).
Taxes on employment income, including how the amount charged
to tax for a tax year is to be calculated and who is liable for the tax
charged, is governed by the 2003 Income Tax (Earnings and
Pensions) Act (ITEPA). The dispute centred on whether the signing
bonus ceased to be ‘earnings’ for the purposes of ITEPA when
repaid or whether it became ‘negative taxable earnings’. HMRC
tried to argue that the repayment was liquidated damages for
breach of an implied provision that employee notice would not be
given before the fifth anniversary of the contract and therefore not
earnings at all.
The decision will make contractual clawback provisions more
appealing to those employers that had previously rejected or
limited them because of the tax consequences.
Clawback is the mandatory repayment of pay, usually bonuses,
when specified circumstances arise after payment. It is increasingly
expected to apply to senior executives of publicly-listed companies
and senior financial executives by shareholders, politicians and the
public. It is also expected or required to apply to the same groups
in increasingly robust terms by the rules or codes of national
regulators, including the Financial Reporting Council and the
banking industry regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority.
In its judgment, the Upper Tribunal ruled against HMRC although
for different reasons than the First Tier Tribunal. It said that a
payment from the employee to the employer or certain third
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
6
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Comment
Income tax repayments on ‘clawed back’ bonuses (continued)
It has long been understood that clawback raises difficult legal and
practical issues, including doubt as to whether income tax paid on
the original payment could be recovered by the employee after
clawback. This has resulted in employers often requiring only
clawback net of income tax, effectively leaving the employer out of
pocket for the income tax which neither employer nor employee
could get back.
Employers should review any bonus or other payment clawback
provisions they have, and the circumstances in which they are
intended to apply, as it will now be easier to claw back gross
amounts, ensuring that employers are not left out of pocket by
recovering only net amounts.
Before this decision, gross clawback could seem unduly harsh,
making bonuses and long-term incentives less effective as
performance or retention mechanisms. The availability of clawback
tax relief may also make it less necessary for employers to rely on
a complex ‘malus’ system, which adjusts bonus amounts during
deferral periods, to take account of subsequent performance and
adjusted views of original performance.
Although the tribunal judge was careful to distinguish between the
circumstances of this case and other potential payments from
employee to employer, the decision provides a useful explanation
of a previously unclear section of tax law.
One point that remains to be considered is the extent to which this
decision might be applied to clawback of employment income
taxed under different provisions, such as shares and other
securities acquired by employees in various ways. These are taxed
as ‘specific employment income’ and not ‘general earnings’, as was
the case with the bonus payment here.
Graeme Standen is a Senior Practice
Development Lawyer in our share plans and
incentives team. He provides technical
assistance to clients and colleagues on all types
of employee share schemes and other incentive
arrangements, and on the corporate
governance and regulation of remuneration for
company directors and those working in
financial services. He also provides technical
support to the GC100 and Investor Group
which issues guidance on quoted company
directors’ remuneration reporting and policy.
E: graeme.standen@pinsentmasons.com
T: +44 (0)20 7054 2612
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
7
PM-Tax | Recent Articles
What is an unallowable purpose?
by Heather Self
This article was published in Tax Journal on 3 October 2014.
“The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things”
It is, in my view, time for a fresh look at CTA09 s. 441 – the
paradigm TAAR on unallowable purpose, originally enacted as FA
1996 Sch 9 para 13.
instrument accordingly. The courts decided that the scheme did
not work, ultimately on grounds other than main purpose, but the
comments of the Special Commissioners are interesting:
“We are not satisfied that finding a better use for the £65,000,000 of
idle currency was the main purpose for which Prudential was party to
the RBS short-term swap contract. Prudential was implementing the
scheme in the manner prescribed by Ernst & Young and using as much
cash as was available for the purpose. It follows, we think, that the tax
advantage of securing that £65,000,000 was brought into account as
part of amount B was, to use the expression of Lightman J in SEMA
(see below), more than “mere icing on the cake”. It was the main
purpose.” Prudential Plc v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKSPC
SPC00636
“The company may not bring into account … so much of any debit …
as on a just and reasonable apportionment is attributable to the
unallowable purpose.” (CTA09 s. 441(3))
If the purposes of the company include a tax avoidance purpose,
this will be an unallowable purpose if it is the main, or one of
the main, purposes for which the company is a party to the
loan relationship.
We now have the GAAR, and HMRC is securing a high success rate
in avoidance cases reaching the Courts (over 80% according to
their statistics). Perhaps emboldened by this, my experience is that
HMRC are taking an increasingly aggressive line on current disputes
involving s. 441 – and I am not convinced that they are always
technically correct in their analysis.
There was then a rash of financing schemes, many of them
marketed by the Big 4, and often relying on accounting
mismatches. Perhaps the simplest was the intra group convertible,
where a UK company with a commercial financing need issued a
convertible bond to its UK parent. Both companies simply followed
the accounts, but under old UK GAAP the subsidiary treated the
instrument as debt, while the parent accounted under IFRS and
treated the instrument as equity. When this scheme was
implemented properly (and a surprising number were not) then
HMRC found it hard to attack, and so changed the law by
implementing s. 418 CTA09 (now superseded by the Group
Mismatch rules CTA10 ss. 938A - 938N).
A brief history
When s. 441 (at the time, para 13) was introduced, there was
considerable concern as to its likely scope. The then Economic
Secretary, Angela Knight, said:
“Where a company is choosing between different ways of arranging
its commercial affairs, it is acceptable for it to choose the course that
gives a favourable tax outcome. Where paragraph 13 will come into
play is where tax avoidance is the object, or one of the main objects,
of the exercise.” (quoted in HMRC’s manuals at CFM38170).
A number of more complex schemes, many of which also relied on
intra group mismatches, have found their way to the Courts in
recent years. These include Explainaway Ltd v HMRC (an
unfortunate choice of name for a Deloitte scheme) [2012] UKUT
362 (TCC); Versteegh Ltd v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 642 (TC) (PwC)
and Greene King plc v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0178 (TCC), (EY). Whilst
some are still being appealed, HMRC so far have generally found a
sympathetic hearing. An exception was Fidex Ltd v HMRC (No 2),
[2013] UKFTT 212, where the taxpayer won on a technical
interpretation at the FTT, but HMRC are appealing.
For some years after that, the provisions operated “in terrorem”.
HMRC would threaten to use para 13; the taxpayer would often
back down rather than test the point in litigation. But as time
passed, and no cases were actually brought to Court, advisers
appeared to get bolder: not so much a game of cat and mouse as
one of “grandmother’s footsteps”, perhaps?
In 2002, EY marketed the TOMS (“The off market swap”)
arrangement to a number of companies, including Prudential Plc:
the difficulty for HMRC was that the scheme potentially allowed
the taxpayer to choose the amount of its deduction, by pricing the
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
8
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Recent Articles
What is an unallowable purpose? (continued)
HMRC have also made it very clear that any non-statutory
clearance will not give any assurances about the position under s.
441. In particular, they issued guidance on CFC financing
arrangements in January 2014 (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/drafts/
cfc.pdf) which makes it clear that s. 441 can apply in cases such as
those where profits from an existing UK loan receivable are
transferred out of the UK into a CFC.
The purpose in question is that of the company which is a party to
the loan relationship. It is not enough to assert (as HMRC
sometimes do) that the group clearly had a tax avoidance purpose
and so the company must also have had such a purpose. Evidence
of the intentions of the directors of the company itself must be
considered. Nor can HMRC imagine a company out of existence –
the company is a party to the loan relationship, and its purposes
for being so must be examined.
Current status
The first question in approaching s. 441 is what is meant by
purpose: this requires an analysis of the subjective intentions of
those implementing the transaction. It is a question of fact, and
hence primarily to be determined by the FTT.
The main, or one of the main…
HMRC’s starting point will be that anything which is more than
incidental could be a main purpose.
“Obviously if the tax advantage is mere ‘icing on the cake’ it will not
constitute a main object. Nor will it necessarily do so merely because
it is a feature of the transaction or a relevant factor in the decision to
buy or sell. The statutory criterion is that the tax advantage shall be
more than relevant or indeed an object; it must be a main object. The
question whether it is so is a question of fact for the commissioners in
every case.” Per Lightman J in Inland Revenue Commissioners v
Trustees of the Sema Group Pension Scheme [2002] EWHC 94 (Ch)
“The question whether in fact one of the main objects was to avoid
tax is one for the Special Commissioners to decide upon a
consideration of all the relevant evidence before them and the proper
inferences to be drawn from that evidence.” Lord Upjohn in
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Brebner 43 TC 705
In the recent Lloyds TSB decision (HMRC v Lloyds TSB Equipment
Leasing (No.1) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1062 – see Tax Journal 29
August 2014), the Court of Appeal said that this was a “recipe for
dispute and litigation”, but inevitably evidence – and the way that
it is brought out before the FTT in particular – is crucial.
The recent decision by the Court of Appeal to refer Lloyds TSB back
to the FTT to consider this point (albeit in a different test of
whether there was a main purpose of obtaining capital allowances)
is a cause for concern: some tax directors are beginning to be
nervous about taking any advice on transactions, in case the mere
fact that advice was taken is evidence of a tax avoidance purpose.
That cannot be right – as we were assured by Angela Knight’s
statement, when a company has a choice as to how it organises its
commercial affairs “it is acceptable for it to choose the course that
gives a favourable tax outcome”.
In general, contemporary documents will be given preference over
the recollections of those who were involved, although in Lloyds
TSB the FTT relied heavily on witness evidence. Unhelpful
comments in emails or notes of meetings, particularly around what
should be included in Board minutes or clearance applications, can
be deeply damaging. For example, in Marwood Homes Ltd v Inland
Revenue Commissioners [1999] STC (SCD) 44, the notes of a
meeting included the following:
The key question is surely whether this is a commercial transaction,
implemented tax efficiently, or a tax driven “scheme”. If the overall
result is that income has not been taxed, then alarm bells should
sound; on the other hand, if there is a real commercial need for
cash, and it has been structured in one way rather than another,
then s. 441 should not apply – but HMRC may well assert that it
does. Where a tax advantage can be identified, HMRC will often
leap to the conclusion that there must have been a main purpose
of obtaining that advantage - even where the evidence does not
support this.
‘(The senior tax manager) went through the draft clearance
application with (Mr Bailey). The main change was to “beef up” the
commercial justification for the transactions by referring to effect
of the dividends being to offset the damage of the solvency of the
Marwood Homes Ltd balance sheet due to the 1992 loss.’
Before deciding whether to pursue an argument with HMRC, it is
crucial to look hard at all the evidence and decide whether you
would be happy for those documents to be highlighted in Court.
HMRC will ask for all correspondence, including internal emails,
before putting forward a formal challenge. At an earlier stage,
when implementing a transaction, it is important to document
genuine commercial reasons as well as any tax considerations – the
taxpayer lost in AH Field (Holdings) Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 104
(TC) when the Tribunal held that there was little evidence that
commercial, rather than tax, benefits had been considered.
The debits “attributable” to the unallowable purpose
Even if there is an unallowable purpose, there is one final, and
crucial, step to be taken. How much of the debits are
“attributable” to that purpose?
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
9
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Recent Articles
What is an unallowable purpose? (continued)
In the CFC financing guidance (see above) HMRC confirmed their
general view that:
“The concept of tax advantage requires a comparison with a
hypothetical transaction the nature of which will also be determined by
the evidence of each particular case. Debits are restricted to the extent
that an unallowable purpose has caused them to arise or be bigger.”
This is known as the “Wilberforce comparator”, following the
comments in IRC v Parker [1996] AC 141. Crucially, if the debits are
no more than they would have been in a reasonable comparator,
then no disallowance should result.
Often HMRC will argue that the appropriate comparator is equity,
on the grounds that the transaction “could” have been funded with
equity. This is not the point. Provided there is a genuine need for
funds, and it is commercially feasible for the company to borrow,
the company is at liberty to choose debt rather than equity.
However, as always, the evidence must be examined carefully.
Conclusion
The environment for tax planning is hostile, and HMRC are taking
an increasingly aggressive approach. Where there is a tax “scheme”
with income which escapes tax somewhere, do not expect the
courts to be sympathetic. But where there is genuine borrowing,
for commercial reasons, companies should stand firm against
HMRC’s possible attack under s. 441.
Heather Self is a Partner (non-lawyer) with
almost 30 years of experience in tax. She has
been Group Tax Director at Scottish Power,
where she advised on numerous corporate
transactions, including the $5bn disposal of
the regulated US energy business. She also
worked at HMRC on complex disputes with
FTSE 100 companies, and was a specialist
adviser to the utilities sector, where she was
involved in policy issues on energy generation
and renewables.
E: heather.self@pinsentmasons.com
T: +44 (0)161 662 8066
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
10
PM-Tax | Recent Articles
Highlights from our 2014 Share
Plans Roadshow
by Matthew Findley and Suzannah Crookes
Our Share Plans & Incentives team has just completed its annual Share Plans Roadshow client event
in our offices around the UK. Matthew Findley and Suzannah Crookes pick out some highlights –
including some points made by HMRC speakers.
The Roadshow – now in its 20th year - is a popular event with
delegates, and offers an overview of recent developments in
relation to executive pay and share plans. The wide-range of
sessions combine technical updates together with a review of
developing market practice, with the focus on sharing ideas and
suggesting practical solutions to the issues which companies may
face now and in the coming months. The Roadshow also provides a
forum for companies to exchange their own experiences and an
opportunity for networking.
We were very pleased to be joined at our London Roadshow by
representatives of HMRC who gave some helpful pointers to
companies preparing to register their UK share plans online under
the new regime in force this tax year, and around the approach to
self-certification of tax-advantaged plans. (In the other venues,
instead one of our team reviewed all of the issues that the Finance
Act 2014 reforms raise for companies with share plans.)
In London, HMRC’s speakers also talked about online filing for
share plans, confirming that the online returns for the current tax
year (the first online under the new system) will be available from
April, to coincide with the end of the tax year. They confirmed that
further detail of the content of the new forms will be published
later this year, so that companies can familiarise themselves with
the new forms and, should they wish, undertake “data testing” to
check that they are presenting the required information in the
correct format. Companies will be pleased to learn that
attachments to their online returns can be submitted as Excel or .
csv files, rather than only as .odf, as previously suggested. HMRC
has altered this in response to feedback, and we understand that
they are also revisiting some of the entries required on the forms,
again in response to feedback. The collaborative approach to
development of the new online filing regime has been welcomed
by all involved and HMRC is still keen to receive companies’
comments on the new template forms – if you wish to comment,
you can use the following email address - shareschemes@hmrc.gsi.
gov.uk, or we would be happy to pass on your views.
This year’s sessions started with a look at the executive pay regime
as the new directors’ remuneration regulations approach their first
anniversary and how companies and investors may approach “year
2” of the regime. A related session focused on the detailed
provisions around remuneration of new and departing directors
under the new regime.
Maximising the value of incentives, in particular in light of recent
pension reforms, is another hot topic. As well as an overview of the
pensions changes from members of the Pinsent Masons Pensions
team, this year’s agenda included a discussion of share plans in the
context of employee’s wider financial planning and wealth
creation, as well as a look at administrative solutions to promote
and facilitate share ownership amongst the wider workforce both
in the UK and overseas, for example through use of “global
nominee” or “vested share” accounts.
Tax and regulatory compliance provided the subjects for a further
set of sessions, covering the changes to the UK taxation of share
awards held by internationally mobile employees from 6 April
2015, as well as the practical impact of the burgeoning FATCA (and
similar) legislation on the operation of share plans, especially the
many plans with internationally mobile participants or using
offshore intermediaries.
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
11
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Recent Articles
Highlights from our 2014 Share Plans Roadshow (continued)
If you would like further information or advice in relation to the
online filing and self-certification of employee share plans and
awards – or on any of the topics referred to above, please contact
one of the authors or any member of the Share Plans and
Incentives team.
Matthew Findley is head of our Share Plans &
Incentives team. Matthew advises companies
in relation to the design, implementation and
operation of share plans and employee
incentive arrangements both in the UK and
internationally. His experience extends to
both executive plans and all-employee
arrangements. Matthew has been quoted in
both Houses of Parliament on employee share
ownership. He also has considerable
experience of the corporate governance and
investor relations issues associated with
executive incentives and remuneration
planning generally.
E: matthew.findley@pinsentmasons.com
T: +44 (0)20 7490 6554
Suzannah Crookes is a Legal Director in our
Share Plans & Incentives team who advises
companies on the implementation and
continuing operation of employee share and
incentive plans, including the design and
establishment of new plans (both taxadvantaged and non-tax-advantaged plans),
managing grants and maturities under existing
plans, analysis of technical tax and legal
matters and co-ordinating advice on
international aspects where appropriate. In
addition, she advises on the impact of
corporate transactions both for buyers and
target companies or groups, and assists
companies planning towards exit by sale or
IPO. She works for a range of listed plcs, AIM
companies and unlisted companies including
as private-equity backed and owner-managed
businesses.
E: suzannah.crookes@pinsentmasons.com
T: +44 (0)113 294 5233
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
12
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax |PM-Tax
Our Comment
| Cases
Procedure
Hargreaves v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0395 (TCC)
FTT dismisses application to have preliminary hearing on competence issue
Mr Hargreaves sold a tranche of his shares and realised a
significant capital gain. As that gain would be subject to CGT if he
were resident in the UK, Mr Hargeaves decided before selling the
shares to become non-resident.
Mr Hargreaves’ second argument was that convenience dictated
that there ought to be a separate hearing. He argued that in order
to adjudge HMRC’s competence to issue the Notice of Assessment,
it was not necessary to look at the substantive issue. The question
turned on what the taxpayer did vis-à-vis HMRC and not what his
actual lifestyle was. The tribunal disagreed. As the Notice of
Assessment was issued on the basis that the taxpayer was
considered negligent in the submission of his return, it was
“central” to this question of negligence whether or not it was
reasonable for the taxpayer to assert in his return that he was not
resident. Further, the tribunal noted that two separate hearings
would be likely to lead to ‘duplication of effort’ as the FTT would
inevitably have to arrive at a view on the facts relevant to the
taxpayer’s residence. It could also serve to cause further delay in
what had already become a ‘stale case’.
The substantive question in the case was whether the steps he
took to become non-resident were effective, or whether he
remained resident in the UK. There was also a procedural issue as
to whether HMRC had competence to issue a Notice of
Assessment under TMA 1970, s. 29 (the competence issue). Before
the FTT, Mr Hargreaves unsuccessfully argued that this
competence issue ought to be determined at a preliminary hearing.
He appealed to the UT.
Mr Hargreaves argued that it would be unjust not to preliminarily
hear the competence issue as he would be deprived of a procedural
right to elect not to call evidence. This injustice was claimed to
stem from the fact that the burden of proof in s. 29 fell on HMRC
and the hearing of the two issues together would thereby
undermine this apportionment of the burden. The UT responded
that the taxpayer would inevitably have to call evidence as it was
his intention to appeal the substantive issue also, wherein the
burden of proof did lie upon him. It followed that this did not
subvert the s. 29 burden of proof or infringe his right to call no
evidence; it was simply an ‘ordinary consequence’ in the
circumstances. Thus, it would be wrong to ‘elevate’ this procedural
advantage into a principle or right. Further, the UT suggested that
the motive behind the argument for separate hearing was in order
to allow the taxpayer to have ‘two separate bites at the cherry’.
Comment
This was the third time, following Hankinson v HMRC [2007] STI
2854 and Businessman v HMRC [2008] STC (SCD) 1151, that a
taxpayer in a residence appeal unsuccessfully sought to have the
competence issue heard preliminarily. As such, the outcome in this
case ought to come as little surprise. Indeed, the logic that analysis
of a substantial issue necessarily bears upon the merits of a
procedural issue, has been one to which members of the judiciary
have been historically pre-disposed. This case serves as a reminder
that persuading a court for separate hearings in such
circumstances is a far from simple task.
Read the decision
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
13
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Cases
Procedure (continued)
Lady Henrietta Pearson v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 890 (TC)
HMRC bound by FTT’s VAT refund decision due to its failure to raise alternative argument
VATA 1994 makes provision for the refund of VAT incurred by DIY
builders carrying out residential conversions. Lady Pearson sought
to recover the VAT she had paid in relation to her home conversion
and when HMRC refused to repay the VAT in question – about
£40,000 - Lady Pearson appealed to the FTT.
HMRC had failed to argue this point at tribunal and had not
appealed against the FTT’s decision. The FTT held that it would not
be right for Lady Pearson to be denied a full refund on the basis that
“HMRC’s primary arguments have been wrong all along and that the
proper amount of VAT for the suppliers to have been charged was
not the full amounts, as HMRC themselves had contended”. The FTT
therefore ordered HMRC to refund the full £40,000.
The FTT found that the work done met the conditions of the VAT
refund provisions and ordered the refund of £40,000. However,
when HMRC came to refund the VAT it claimed that the suppliers
of the building materials should only have charged Lady Pearson at
a 5% VAT rate, rather than the full rates she was charged, and
therefore reduced the refund accordingly to around £12,600.
Comment
This decision shows that, once an appeal has ended and no further
appeal is made, the FTT’s decision is binding and HMRC cannot
supersede or amend this with its own decision based on an argument
it failed to raise at tribunal. HMRC should have argued at tribunal
that the refund was not payable and that, in the alternative, if it
were payable it would only be payable at the 5% rate.
Lady Pearson launched a fresh appeal to the FTT challenging HMRC’s
reduction and the FTT again upheld her appeal. The FTT agreed that,
correctly interpreted, the legislation did limit the VAT recovery to
5% in relation to residential conversions such as this. However,
Read the decision
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
14
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Cases
Substance
The Executors for JJ Leadley (dec’d) v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 892 (TC)
Executors can make claims for losses to be offset against gains made during a deceased’s lifetime
Mr Leadley invested in shares in two companies and provided a
loan, all of which later became valueless. On 6 April 2010, Mr
Leadley was served with a notice to file his tax return, and it was
accepted by HMRC that the shares and the loan were all valueless
before this time. However, five weeks later, Mr Leadley was killed
in a motoring accident.
The UT said that there appeared to be nothing in TMA requiring
executors to file a return for the pre death period and said that the
position seemed to be that Mr Leadley was chargeable to the tax
incurred before his death but the executors were liable to pay it.
When deciding how to interpret the provisions, the FTT made
reference to s. 62 TCGA, which provides that losses and gains are
wiped out on death and losses before death are only available
against liability on pre-death gains. The FTT applied this reasoning,
as a guide to Parliament’s intention, to find that the losses Mr
Leadley made on his shares prior to his death could be set against
Mr Leadley’s chargeability to tax. The FTT said that the personal
representatives were standing in the shoes of Mr Leadley for his
pre-death tax return and it is only the gains of Mr Leadley that the
losses could be offset against. The losses could not be carried
forward to be set against gains made by the estate.
Mr Leadley’s executors filed a tax return for the tax year
2009/2010 on behalf of Mr Leadley’s estate. The estate claimed
relief in respect of the loss on the shares under s. 131 ITA 2000
which allows for a loss to be set against income and also relied on
s. 253 TCGA to carry the loan forward to be set off against capital
gains in future years. HMRC argued that the only person able to
make the claims was the living Mr Leadley and not his estate. In
addition, it argued the shares did not meet the requirements of the
legislation because the person who made the claim (the executors)
was not the same person who owned the shares when they lost
their value.
Comment
This was an appeal against a very harsh interpretation by HMRC of
the conditions for loss relief. The FTT’s decision highlights the
deficiencies in the legislation but represents an interpretation of
the rules that most people would consider to be a ‘fair’ result.
HMRC also argued that Mr Leadley did not own the shares at the
time of the claim (as he had died), taking the time of the claim as
the time when the return was submitted. However, the FTT found
that HMRC’s interpretation was overly literal. Instead, the FTT
decided that the person must be owner of the shares at the date on
which the claim is to have effect. In this case, that interpretation
only required Mr Leadley to have been in possession of the shares
at the date of the claim, 5 April 2010, which he was.
Read the decision
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
15
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Cases
Substance (continued)
HMRC v Sportech PLC & Ors. [2014] UKUT 0398 (TCC)
‘Spot the Ball’ competition is not a game of chance.
HMRC appealed a ruling from the FTT that ‘Spot the Ball’
competitions were ‘games of chance.’ Spot the Ball competitions
involve the doctoring of a photograph containing player(s), typically
football players, so that the ball is removed. Contestants must then
pay a fee in order to submit where they reckon the ball would be
located. The winner is the person who most accurately marks where
the ball actually was or, sometimes, where a panel carrying out the
same activity, believe the ball to most likely be.
The UT found that the FTT had incorrectly relied on a change to the
statute which it had interpreted as a change in the meaning of
‘game.’ The UT said the FTT should have, according to the UT, relied
on the authorities which showed that the Spot the Ball competition
was not a game of chance. Therefore, the UT decided that the FTT
was not entitled to come to the decision it did. The appeal was
therefore allowed in HMRC’s favour and the competition fell to be
VATable at the standard rate.
The FTT’s ruling, that the Spot the Ball competition was a ‘game’
with an element of ‘chance’ (as well as some degree of skill), meant
that no VAT was due on the fees paid to enter the competition, as
the competitions fell within the exemption for gambling. In making
its decision, the FTT had decided that the authorities were of little
assistance.
Comment
Although this decision will affect only a small number of companies,
there is a large amount of tax at stake. It is understood that this
decision means that Sportech will have to repay to HMRC £93m of
VAT which was repaid to it after the FTT decision.
Read the decision
The UT, however, did find helpful precedents in the authorities. It
found that to be capable of being a game, there must be some active
participation, following the decision in DPP v Regional Pools
Promotions. Case law states that pulling a lever, in Rosenbaum, is a
sufficient level of participation so as to be a game. However, merely
entering a competition does not meet that test. The UT decided that
marking a cross where the contestant thought the ball was located
was not sufficiently similar to pulling a lever, but instead only
amounted to entering a competition.
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
16
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Cases
Substance (continued)
Taylor Clark Leisure PLC v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0396 (TCC)
Repayment claim made by representative member of VAT group was time barred and the
representative member could not rely on a claim made by another group member.
Taylor Clark operated numerous business and leisure facilities in
bingo halls and cinema complexes. A substantial part of its
turnover derived from bingo and other gaming machines. From 1
April 1990, Taylor Clark transferred its business to a wholly owned
subsidiary (Carlton). Taylor Clark was registered for VAT as the
representative member of its VAT group. Carlton was part of this
VAT group until 1998, at which point it was sold.
did not does not affect this principle. This meant that Taylor Clark
could not rely on the claim made by Carlton. This determined the
appeal in HMRC’s favour and upheld the FTT decision that Taylor
Clark’s claims were time barred.
Although not obliged to decide them, Lord Doherty went on to
consider further issues that were argued before him. In particular,
neither Taylor Clark nor HMRC had agreed with the FTT’s
comments that a representative member (Taylor Clark) may be
able to act as agent for a member of a VAT group (Carlton).
Instead, the UT agreed with the subsequent FTT decision of
Standard Chartered (and not the conflicting decision in MG Rover)
that the representative member was the person entitled to make a
repayment claim under the legislation.
Taylor Clark had accounted for VAT on supplies from its gaming
machines at the standard rate. It later became apparent that such
supplies should have been standard rated and, following the
Fleming case, claims could be made to recover overpaid VAT from
1973 provided the claim was submitted before 1 April 2009. Taylor
Clark failed to submit a claim within the time limit, only doing so
after the time limit. Carlton, however, had made a claim within the
time limit, but was by this time outside of Taylor Clark’s VAT group
and control.
In considering whether the right to reclaim overpaid VAT was
assigned, the UT noted that this is a possibility and looked at the
agreement by which the subsidiary company was sold. The share
sale agreement did not expressly deal with the VAT reclaim point.
Lord Doherty said that, having regard to what a reasonable person
at the time would have known, the agreement did not assign any
right to reclaim VAT to the subsidiary company. That right was
instead kept for the representative member.
The FTT held that Taylor Clark’s claims were time barred and that
the right to make the claims had been assigned to Carlton when
the business was transferred to it. Taylor Clark appealed to the UT.
In the UT Lord Doherty decided that, from the legislation alone, it
was clear that the person who can make a claim is the person who
accounted for the VAT – ie Taylor Clark. The UT therefore rejected
the argument from Taylor Clark that any person can make a claim
on behalf of any other person. The UT also rejected any notion that
the principle of effectiveness was breached by the time-bar. Lord
Doherty noted that many entities were able to make Fleming
claims within the limitation period and the fact that Taylor Clark
Comment
This case illustrates the importance of thinking about possible VAT
reclaims when a company is sold and documenting who is entitled
to the benefit of any reclaims. Lord Doherty’s comments in relation
to Standard Chartered are not binding so there is still uncertainty
when companies have left VAT groups as to who can claim VAT
repayments.
Read the decision
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
17
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Our Cases
Substance (continued)
Cross v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 907 (TC)
A VAT repayment claim could only be made by the company to whom a VAT registration number
had been transferred on a TOGC and not by the person who transferred the business.
Mr Cross was in business as a car salesman, a petrol retailer and
also let commercial properties. He was registered for VAT as a sole
proprietor but later incorporated his car sales business. Mr Cross
applied for his VAT registration number to be transferred to the
company on the basis that there had been a transfer of a going
concern (TOGC).
transferred as part of the TOGC. The FTT decided the issue in
favour of HMRC, on the basis that there was no evidence that Mr
Cross intended to retain any aspect of the rights and liabilities
arising from the business.
The FTT looked closely at the VAT regulations, noting in particular
that where there is a TOGC and the transfer of the registration
number Regulation 4(8) of the 1980 Regulations says “where… (b)
tax has been accounted for and paid … either by or in name of … the
transferor, it shall be treated as having been done by the transferee.”
The FTT did not accept Mr Cross’s argument that this should be
interpreted as referring only to input tax and not output tax.
Mr Cross, and his company which had since ceased trading, made
Fleming claims for overpaid VAT in 2009, under s. 80 VATA. HMRC
repaid the VAT and statutory interest at the time, but now decided
that they made the repayments in error on the basis that the right
to make a recovery claim passed to the company on the TOGC and
so HMRC issued a recovery assessment on Mr Cross for the
amount paid to him.
S. 80 VATA enables a repayment claim to be made by “a person”
who has accounted for output tax. The FTT noted that the “person”
for the purposes of the legislation was the registered taxable
person (the company). It was therefore only the company which
was able to make the VAT reclaims. As a result, HMRC’s recovery
assessments were allowed and Mr Cross was required to pay back
the amounts he received from the VAT overpayment claim. The
company would have been able to make the claims instead, but it
had already been dissolved.
As this was not an arm’s length transaction, there was minimal
documentation of the transfer of the business from Mr Cross to the
company. As such, whilst it would have been possible for the right
to reclaim VAT to be transferred from Mr Cross to the company,
the position was not expressly dealt with. Mr Cross argued that as
it had never entered his mind, he had no intention to transfer the
right to reclaim VAT to the company. HMRC argued that the
standard position was that the right to make a claim for repayment
of VAT “went” with the transfer of the registration number.
Comment
Like the Taylor Clark case mentioned above, this case highlights
another practical difficulty in making repayment claims which only
come to light a number of years later. In this case the VAT
registration number had been transferred but the transferee no
longer existed and therefore could not claim the repayment.
Having no previous authority dealing with s. 80 VATA claims in
relation to TOGCs to rely on, the FTT approached its decision on
whether, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Cross had intended to
reserve the right to make a claim, or whether it had been
Read the decision
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
18
>continued from previous page
PM-Tax | Events
Events
Tax and Africa – lessons from the Tullow Uganda case
The case of Tullow Uganda v Heritage Oil and Gas showed the importance of tax provisions in sale and purchase agreements. A disputed
tax demand from the Ugandan tax authority led to litigation in the UK courts between buyer and seller.
David Wolfson, QC, who acted as Counsel for Tullow, will give an insight into the strategic issues, as well as the nature of the litigation
and local tax issues.
The seminar will be of interest to Tax Directors and General Counsel, not only from companies investing in Africa but, more generally,
anyone involved in the negotiation of commercial transactions.
The seminar will be led by David Wolfson, QC of 1 Essex Court, who has been instructed in many of the major banking
and commercial disputes in recent years, and whose practice extends over a broad range of commercial law, both in litigation
and arbitration.
David’s presentation will be followed by a Q&A session, chaired by Heather Self from Pinsent Masons.
Monday, 13 October 2014
Pinsent Masons LLP, 30 Crown Place, London EC2A 4ES
5:30pm Registration
6:00pm Seminar Start
7:00pm Drinks and canapés
To attend please contact Marina Dell by clicking here.
Autumn Statement Breakfast Seminar
The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement will take place this year on 3 December. To discuss some of the key themes of the speech and to
provide crucial insight into the tax implications of measures announced, Pinsent Masons is hosting a breakfast seminar on the morning of
4 December 2014. Join us to digest the speech and to discuss what the Autumn Statement really means for business and the wider
economy.
Thursday 4 December 2014
Pinsent Masons LLP, 30 Crown Place, London EC2A 4ES
8.00am Registration and Breakfast
8.30 – 10.00am Seminar
To attend please contact Marina Dell by clicking here.
CONTENTS
BACK
NEXT
7312
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
19
PM-Tax | People
People
Pump Court Tax Chambers
We would like to congratulate Kevin Prosser QC on being elected head of Pump Court Tax Chambers as from 1st September 2014, in
place of Andrew Thornhill QC, who has stepped down as head after 21 years, but will continue to practise as usual.
Legal 500 directory rankings
The latest version of the Legal 500, which provides a “client guide to the best law firms”, has been published. As a firm Pinsent Masons
was named as the firm with the most Tier one rankings. We are pleased to have also received excellent rankings for our tax practice.
As in past years, we are ranked in tier one for Tax disputes and investigations.
Quotes from the guide include:
“Pinsent Masons LLP is ‘much better value than the Magic Circle, and better value than the Big Four accountants’”
“Pinsent Masons LLP’s ‘impressive’ team is strong in complex disputes.”
“Pinsent Masons LLP ‘allies strong technical knowledge with good understanding of client needs and objectives’.”
On private wealth tax our lawyers attract praise for their “insight, expertise and efficiency.”
On share plans: “A ‘first-class service is always provided’ at Pinsent Masons LLP, which fields one of the largest teams nationally.”
Tell us what you think
We welcome comments on the newsletter, and suggestions for future content.
Please send any comments, queries or suggestions to: catherine.robins@pinsentmasons.com
We tweet regularly on tax developments. Follow us at:
@PM_Tax
PM-Tax | Wednesday 8 October 2014
CONTENTS
BACK
This note does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be taken before acting on any of the topics covered.
Pinsent Masons LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered number: OC333653) authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the
appropriate regulatory body in the other jurisdictions in which it operates. The word ‘partner’, used in relation to the LLP, refers to a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant of the
LLP or any affiliated firm of equivalent standing. A list of the members of the LLP, and of those non-members who are designated as partners, is displayed at the LLP’s registered office:
30 Crown Place, London EC2A 4ES, United Kingdom. We use ‘Pinsent Masons’ to refer to Pinsent Masons LLP, its subsidiaries and any affiliates which it or its partners operate as separate
businesses for regulatory or other reasons. Reference to ‘Pinsent Masons’ is to Pinsent Masons LLP and/or one or more of those subsidiaries or affiliates as the context requires.
© Pinsent Masons LLP 2014.
7312
For a full list of our locations around the globe please visit our website: www.pinsentmasons.com