This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Michael Gibbon

Inmarsat Global Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021]

Judgment Date: 23 Mar 2021

A successor to a business that had incurred costs of launching leased satellites was not deemed to own the satellites by operation of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 Pt II s.78(1) and therefore was not entitled to capital allowances in respect of those costs under s.24(1).

View case

Members
Michael Gibbon QC

Practice areas
Tax

HMRC v Smith & Nephew (2020)

Judgment Date: 03 Mar 2020

Michael Gibbon QC (leading James Rivett QC of Pump Court Tax Chambers) has appeared for HMRC in an important test-case central aspects of the loan relationships code, in particular the “fairly represents” provision, and the proper treatment of exchange gains and losses.

View case

Members
Michael Gibbon QC

Practice areas
Tax

Inmarsat Global Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2019]

Judgment Date: 30 Aug 2019

For the purposes of entitlement to capital allowances, the costs of launching leased satellites into orbit did not amount to the provision of machinery and plant for the purposes of the lessees trade. The Capital Allowances Act 1990 s.78(1) did not operate to deem that the satellites belonged to a company that had succeeded to the lessees business.

View case

Hancock v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2019)

Judgment Date: 22 May 2019

The Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.116(1)(b) applied where, by a single transaction, both qualifying corporate bonds (which fell outside the charge to capital gains tax (CGT) on redemption) and non-qualifying corporate bonds (which fell within the charge to CGT on redemption) were converted into qualifying corporate bonds.

View case

Onur Air Tasimacilik AS v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) (2017)

Judgment Date: 16 Nov 2017

The court refused to vary an order requiring an airline to make a £3.64 million payment into court as a condition of its appeal against the payment of the same to settle a judgment debt. The airline's chairman, who had made a very substantial investment in the company and continued to provide funding, could and would provide the necessary financial support to enable the payment into court to be made.

View case

Clavis Liberty Fund 1 LP v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2017)

Judgment Date: 19 Oct 2017

Where a limited liability partnership had engaged in a scheme under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 s.730 to generate losses which could be offset against its tax affairs elsewhere, HMRC were entitled to reduce those losses to nil because the transaction was an artificial arrangement and not part of the partnership's genuine trading activities.

View case

Patrick Degorce v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2017)

Judgment Date: 06 Oct 2017

The First-tier Tribunal had not made any material error of law when deciding that a taxpayer who participated in a film finance tax avoidance scheme had not been carrying on a trade capable of giving rise to trading losses. The Upper Tribunal had been entitled to view an error of law by the FTT as immaterial and to uphold its decision that the taxpayer had not been trading in film rights.

View case

Goldtrail Travel v Aydin & Ors (2017)

Judgment Date: 02 Aug 2017

The Supreme Court set out the factors to be considered when determining whether a company's appeal would be stifled by its inability to comply with a condition to pay a sum into court. The making of such an order for a company without assets could not be justified by reliance on the fact that the company's owner could potentially make the payment, without considering whether he would actually do so.

View case

Netley v HMRC (2017)

Judgment Date: 26 May 2017

In a lead case, the tribunal examined the basis and principles on which the market value of shares admitted to the Alternative Investment Market and gifted as "qualifying investments" to a charity under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 s.587B should be determined. The purpose of the valuation was to establish the correct amount of tax relief generated by the gift.

View case

(1) Anthony Hancock (2) Tracy Lee Hancock v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2017)

Judgment Date: 26 May 2017

On the proper interpretation and application of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.116, s.127 and s.132, the taxpayers' transaction, which involved the conversion of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) and non-QCBs into QCBs, which were then redeemed for cash, did not have the effect of allowing frozen gains on the bonds to escape capital gains tax.

View case

Hancock v HMRC (2017)

Judgment Date: 25 May 2017

On the proper interpretation and application of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.116, s.127 and s.132, the taxpayers' transaction, which involved the conversion of qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) and non-QCBs into QCBs, which were then redeemed for cash, did not have the effect of allowing frozen gains on the bonds to escape capital gains tax.

View case

Degorce v Revenue & Customs Commissioner (2016)

Judgment Date: 17 Jun 2016

The First-tier Tribunal declined to stay a taxpayer's appeal against an amendment to his 2007/2008 tax return pending the outcome of an appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of his 2006/2007 return. Although the transactions in both appeals were structurally the same, the issue, whether the taxpayer was carrying on a trade, was essentially one of fact. Therefore, what the Court of Appeal said about the 2006/2007 appeal would not be of sufficient material assistance to justify a stay of the 2007/2008 appeal.

View case

Hancock v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2016)

Judgment Date: 18 Feb 2016

"Transaction" in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.116 could not encompass more than one conversion of "securities" within the meaning of s.132.

View case

DMWSHNZ Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2015)

Judgment Date: 20 Oct 2015

In order for the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.171A to apply to allow the notional transfer of an asset within two companies in the same group before the disposal of that asset to a person who was not a member of the group, it was necessary for the person outside the group to acquire the asset as a result of the disposal. The satisfaction of a debt did not count as a disposal for the purposes of s.171.

View case

Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Aydin (2015)

Judgment Date: 11 Jun 2015

The continuation of a Turkish airline's appeal against a judgment sum awarded in a UK travel company's favour was made conditional on the airline paying the judgment sum into court alongside security for the travel company's costs. The imposition of the condition was justified by the fact that the airline had ceased operating flights to the UK and had no assets in the jurisdiction, thereby depriving the travel company of the normal means of enforcing judgment if the appeal failed.

View case

Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) (2015)

Judgment Date: 22 Apr 2015

An illegality defence could not bar a claim brought by the liquidators of a company which had been the vehicle for a VAT fraud, against its former directors and overseas suppliers who were alleged to have been involved in the fraud. The conduct of the directors could not be attributed to the company where there was a claim against the directors for a breach of their duties. Further, the Insolvency Act 1986 s.213had extra-territorial effect.

View case

Nicholas Pike v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2014)

Judgment Date: 20 Jun 2014

A taxpayer was not entitled to income tax loss relief on the disposal of his company's loan stock to a family trust as a "relevant discounted security" within the meaning of the Finance Act 1996 Sch.13. A sum to be paid in addition to the principal amount on redemption of the loan stock amounted to interest and, in accordance with Sch.13 para.3(6), the loan stock was not therefore a relevant discounted security.

View case

Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) v Abdulkadir Aydin & Ors (2014)

Judgment Date: 22 May 2014

The sole director and shareholder of a company in liquidation had breached his fiduciary duties to the company by misapplying its money and had breached the Companies Act 2006 s.175 by putting himself in a position where he had an interest that conflicted with its general interests.

View case

DMWSHNZ Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2014)

Judgment Date: 03 Mar 2014

The court had to determine whether a joint election under the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.171A was valid to enable a company to be deemed as having disposed of loan notes held by its sister company within the same corporate group. The notes, qualifying corporate bonds for the purposes of capital gains tax, had been issued by the purchaser of a shareholding owned by the sister company and related to a loan of the purchase price.

View case

In the Matter of GP Aviation Group International Ltd (2013)

Judgment Date: 04 Jun 2013

The right to appeal against tax assessments was not property capable of being sold within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 Sch.4 Pt III para.6. A liquidator could therefore not assign the conduct of such an appeal to the liquidated company's former directors.

View case

1 2 3 4

Results 1 - 20 of 67