Karen Davidson on UBS AG v HMRC and restricted securities
The First-tier Tribunal's decision in UBS AG v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 266 (TC) has been eagerly awaited by HMRC and a number of corporates that implemented the same or very similar planning in early 2004. The planning was designed to take advantage of the restricted securities legislation in ITEPA 2003 Part 7 Chapter 2 shortly after its introduction. UBS AG is the second reported case interpreting these complex rules. The Supreme Court's decision in the first (Grays Timber Products Ltd v HMRC [2010] STC 782) was handed down during the tribunal hearing in UBS.
Anti-avoidance provisions adopted from 2 December 2004 (the all-encompassing ‘main purpose’ provision in s 431B) would prevent the UBS planning from being effective now. However the case has significance beyond its facts. It presents a substantial challenge to one commonly held view...
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:
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
Home >Articles > UBS AG v HMRC and restricted securities
UBS AG v HMRC and restricted securities
Karen Davidson on UBS AG v HMRC and restricted securities
The First-tier Tribunal's decision in UBS AG v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 266 (TC) has been eagerly awaited by HMRC and a number of corporates that implemented the same or very similar planning in early 2004. The planning was designed to take advantage of the restricted securities legislation in ITEPA 2003 Part 7 Chapter 2 shortly after its introduction. UBS AG is the second reported case interpreting these complex rules. The Supreme Court's decision in the first (Grays Timber Products Ltd v HMRC [2010] STC 782) was handed down during the tribunal hearing in UBS.
Anti-avoidance provisions adopted from 2 December 2004 (the all-encompassing ‘main purpose’ provision in s 431B) would prevent the UBS planning from being effective now. However the case has significance beyond its facts. It presents a substantial challenge to one commonly held view...
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)")