In A Chappell v HMRC (TC02516 – 20 February) an individual (C) had entered into a complex avoidance scheme designed to obtain a tax deduction of more than £300 000 in respect of purported payments of ‘manufactured overseas dividends’ which he claimed to have made to a company (B). HMRC rejected the claim and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed C’s appeal applying the principles laid down in Moodie v CIR & Sinnett ([1993] STC 188) and WT Ramsay Ltd v CIR ([1981] STC 174). Judge Walters observed that the various transactions which had taken place within a few days were self-cancelling and held that they were ‘artificial steps which should be ignored’. Furthermore applying the CA decision in the 1919 case of Earl...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In A Chappell v HMRC (TC02516 – 20 February) an individual (C) had entered into a complex avoidance scheme designed to obtain a tax deduction of more than £300 000 in respect of purported payments of ‘manufactured overseas dividends’ which he claimed to have made to a company (B). HMRC rejected the claim and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed C’s appeal applying the principles laid down in Moodie v CIR & Sinnett ([1993] STC 188) and WT Ramsay Ltd v CIR ([1981] STC 174). Judge Walters observed that the various transactions which had taken place within a few days were self-cancelling and held that they were ‘artificial steps which should be ignored’. Furthermore applying the CA decision in the 1919 case of Earl...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")