In R Sehgal and another v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 312 (TC) (31 August 2022) the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that arrangements under which the taxpayers settled a debt indemnity arising from a share sale did not give rise to a remittance to the UK pursuant to ITA 2007 s 809L.
The taxpayers were UK-resident non-domiciled individuals who claimed the remittance basis. They sold their shares in a company (VGL) to a Luxembourg resident company (CLS). At the time of the sale another company (IRL) indirectly owned by the taxpayers via a Jersey company (SKS) owed VGL’s subsidiary approximately £6m and under the share purchase agreement the taxpayers provided an indemnity in respect of the debt. Shortly after the sale it became clear that the debt could not be recovered so that the indemnity would be triggered. At...
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 R Sehgal and another v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 312 (TC) (31 August 2022) the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that arrangements under which the taxpayers settled a debt indemnity arising from a share sale did not give rise to a remittance to the UK pursuant to ITA 2007 s 809L.
The taxpayers were UK-resident non-domiciled individuals who claimed the remittance basis. They sold their shares in a company (VGL) to a Luxembourg resident company (CLS). At the time of the sale another company (IRL) indirectly owned by the taxpayers via a Jersey company (SKS) owed VGL’s subsidiary approximately £6m and under the share purchase agreement the taxpayers provided an indemnity in respect of the debt. Shortly after the sale it became clear that the debt could not be recovered so that the indemnity would be triggered. At...
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: