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

AH Field (Holdings) Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2012)

Judgment Date: 07 Feb 2012

Revenue and Customs had been right to disallow claims made by a company for loan relationship debits and fee payments, the loans having been entered into for an "unallowable purpose" within the meaning of the Finance Act 1996 Sch.9 para.13. In ascertaining a company's purposes in the context of Sch.9 para.13, it was legitimate to take into account the purposes of the shareholders as well as those of the directors.

View case

Revenue & Customs Commissioners v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd (2010)

Judgment Date: 15 Dec 2010

The appellant (D) appealed against a decision ((2009) EWCA Civ 1165, (2010) STC 80) that it was not entitled to relief in respect of a non-trading deficit in relation to of a series of net-paying "repo" transactions. D had entered into the transactions with a bank, the bank selling gilts to D and re-purchasing them for £27 million less than the purchase price paid by D. D held the gilts for 18.5 days and received interest of £28.8 million, recording the figure of £1.8 million on its profit and loss account.

View case

Revenue & Customs Commissioners v DCC Holdings (UK) LTD (2009)

Judgment Date: 10 Nov 2009

In the circumstances five repurchase or "repo" transactions in gilts under which the taxpayer received more than it had paid did not give rise to an entitlement to relief in respect of a non-trading deficit. On the correct interpretation of the Finance Act 1996 s.84 the deemed interest expense the taxpayer incurred would represent and thereby cancel out the interest to be credited in respect of the gilts.

View case

Revenue & Customs Commissioners v DCC Holdings (UK) LTD (2009)

Judgment Date: 10 Nov 2009

In the circumstances five repurchase or "repo" transactions in gilts under which the taxpayer received more than it had paid did not give rise to an entitlement to relief in respect of a non-trading deficit. On the correct interpretation of the Finance Act 1996 s.84 the deemed interest expense the taxpayer incurred would represent and thereby cancel out the interest to be credited in respect of the gilts.

View case

Astall v Revenue & Customs (2009)

Judgment Date: 09 Oct 2009

Certain zero coupon loan notes, which were issued on terms designed to satisfy the definition of a "relevant discounted security" within the provisions of the Finance Act 1996 Sch.13, did not meet those statutory requirements, purposively construed, since some of the terms had no practical reality and could therefore be disregarded.

View case

M R Klinckie v Revenue & Customs Commisioners (TC00122) (2009)

Judgment Date: 01 Jul 2009

The cancellation of the right of an issuer of loan notes to satisfy their redemption in a foreign currency amounted to a conversion within the meaning of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.132(3).

View case

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2008)

Judgment Date: 17 Oct 2008

The court considered the effect and application of the Finance Act 1996 s.84, s.85 and s.97 in relation to the treatment for taxation purposes of net paying sale and repurchase agreements between companies and concerning gilts.

View case

(1) PA Snell (2) M Snell v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (SpC 699) (2008)

Judgment Date: 08 Jul 2008

Whilst a share sale had been entered into for bona fide commercial reasons, it also had as a main object the procuring of a tax advantage with the result that an assessment to income tax under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 s.793 had been properly made.

View case

John Astall & Graham Edwards v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2008)

Judgment Date: 27 Jun 2008

A security issued as part of a tax avoidance scheme was not a "relevant discounted security" within the meaning of the Finance Act 1996 Sch.13 para.3 because the terms upon which it might possibly be redeemed at a deep gain would never occur.

View case

Alan Blackburn v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2008)

Judgment Date: 19 Feb 2008

In the circumstances money paid to a company with the intention that the company would issue shares in return was to be treated as a contribution to capital and not as a loan to which the "value received" provisions in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 Sch.5B para.13 would apply.

View case

Nicholas John Harding v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2008)

Judgment Date: 30 Jan 2008

Loan notes that contained a currency conversion option did not amount to qualifying corporate bonds within the meaning of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.117, despite the fact that the option had lapsed.

View case

John Astall & Graham Edwards v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2007)

Judgment Date: 14 Aug 2007

A security was not a "relevant discounted security" within the meaning of the Finance Act 1996 Sch.13 para.3 because it was a "practical certainty" that the terms upon which it might possibly be redeemed at a deep gain would never occur.

View case

Thomas & Agnes Carvel Foundation v (1) Pamela Carvel (2) Carvel Foundation Inc (2007)

Judgment Date: 11 Jun 2007

On the application of a beneficiary under an agreement to maintain mutual wills, the court exercised its discretion under the Judicial Trustees Act 1896 s.1 to remove a personal representative of the estate of the deceased and replace her with a neutral, independent person, where she had failed to execute a trust properly for the welfare of the beneficiary.

View case

Golden Grove Estates Ltd v Chancerygate Asset Management Ltd (2007)

Judgment Date: 30 Apr 2007

A master had confused the situation of the claimant's assets under CPR r.25.13(2)(a) and its ability to pay under CPR r.25.13(2)(c) when making no order on an application by the defendant for security for costs.

View case

David Peter Herman & Barbara Herman v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (SpC 609) (2007)

Judgment Date: 26 Mar 2007

The amounts transferred to the appellants from a personal settlement had been received "indirectly" from the trustees of a family settlement for the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.97(5)(a).

View case

1 2 3 4

Results 21 - 40 of 67