The appropriate deduction for tax liabilities in relation to the enquiry by the tax authority of Country X
73.I have already made a number of observations as to the tax authority enquiry. I accept that it has been ongoing for a long period of time and that it has been worrying the Husband considerably. I also accept that he has already spent around $2 million on legal and accountancy fees in Country X. I am also clear that the figures have fluctuated very considerably but this cannot be a criticism of the Husband as he has just provided the amounts given to him by Mr G. I am, however, clear that I cannot take the likely liability at the maximum sum sought by the tax authority, namely c. $70 million. I am clear that there will be a negotiation. The letters from Mr G make this clear. Indeed, it is made even clearer by the fact that the tax authority has asked for a further six months to consider the position put forward by the Husband’s advisors. Moreover, Mr G thinks the tax authority may ask for a further six months thereafter. It is, therefore, entirely clear that the points raised on behalf of the Husband have not been simply brushed aside by the tax authority. Finally, the fact that the tax authority has made a without prejudice indication, whatever its status, that it would accept c. $40 million, makes it very difficult to accept that the liability could be higher than this for two reasons. First, if it was thought by the Husband’s advisors that there was any danger of this, they would surely have immediately settled at that figure. Second, the reasoning for this offer is that, if they get their tax under one head, they would not pursue it under a different head, which is logical. 74.I have found it difficult to assess the likely amount that will finally be agreed. I cannot accept some of the points made by Mr H, such as the 50% deduction on the basis that the tax authority accepts that one point raised by the Husband’s team is a “reasonably arguable position”, although some of his other points seem to have more merit. Doing the best I can, I consider that there will be some further reduction from the without prejudice indication of c. $40 million. I assess the likely figure at c. $35 million, of which the Husband will be responsible for 75%, namely $26.25 million. I realise that this may be unfair one way or the other but it is the best I can do in the circumstances.
- MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
- The relevant history
- The breakdown of the marriage
- The respective Forms E
- The evidence before me
- The position of the PE company
- Section 25 statements
- The valuation of DEF Inc and the other business
- Statement of Issues
- Open proposals
- The Tax enquiry
- The respective Position Statements
- Duxbury
- The Assets Schedule
- £ 3,551,912
- The law I have to apply
- White v White
- K v L
- Miller/McFarlane
- Hart v Hart
- Miller
- Jones v Jones
- Martin
- Hart
- my emphasis)
- Juffali v Juffali
- The evidence I heard
- My assessment of the assets
- The appropriate deduction for tax liabilities in relation to the enquiry by the tax authority of Country X
- Two relatively small loans made by JR’s estate and a trust belonging to KR to the IR Holding Trust
- The resulting overall figure
- The Pre-Nuptial Agreement
- Radmacher v Granatino
- The DEF Inc Side Deed
- My conclusions as to non-matrimonial property
- XW v XH
- Wells v Wells
- The structure of the award
- £ 120,479
- Calderbank
