Introduction
Introduction
This decision relates to the potential application of Section 179(3) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (the “TCGA 1992”) (“Section 179(3)”) to the goodwill relating to four businesses which had been transferred to the Appellant, formerly called The Carphone Warehouse Limited (“CPW”), between 2004 and 2007, in consequence of CPW’s leaving the UK chargeable gains group headed by The Carphone Warehouse Group plc (“CPWG plc”) (the “CPW Chargeable Gains Group”) of which CPW had been a member (the “Degrouping”) in 2008.
The Degrouping arose out of an arrangement entered into between the corporate group headed by CPWG plc (the “CPW Group”) and the corporate group headed by Best Buy Co. Inc. (USA) (“BBCo”) (the “BB Group”).
Section 179(3), together with Section 179(1) of the TCGA 1992 which brings it into operation, provides that, where a company leaves a UK chargeable gains group owning an asset (other than a trading asset) which it has acquired from another member of the same UK chargeable gains group within the previous six years, then the company is deemed to dispose of, and immediately re–acquire, that asset at the market value of the asset at the time of the intra–group acquisition.
The potential relevance of the provision in the present context is that CPW left the CPW Chargeable Gains Group within six years of acquiring the goodwill described above from the Vendor Companies (as defined in paragraph 8 below), which were all members of the CPW Chargeable Gains Group at the time of CPW’s acquisition. Accordingly, if, at the time of the Degrouping, CPW continued to own the goodwill and the goodwill was not a trading asset, then a charge under Section 179(3) will have arisen.
the agreed facts
Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed the following facts for the purposes of this appeal.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Key parties
- Acquisition of the Businesses
- The SPA and the MSA
- The Degrouping
- Procedural background
- the agreed issues
- the agreements
- The SPA
- The MSA
- The Side Letter
- Initial observations on the Agreements and the Side Letter
- other documents
- The Prior SPAs
- The Property Services Agreement
- The Brand Licence
- The Accounts
- The Invoice
- “ About the matter we have finished checking
- “Partial closure notice (PCN)
- The issues – a summary
- Issue One – applicability of the authorities in relation to statutory construction
- Conclusion
- “15 In the task of ascertaining whether a particular statutory provision imposes a charge, or grants an exemption from a charge, the Ramsay approach is generally described – as it is in the statements
- Issue Two – the scope of the rule prohibiting assignment “in gross”
- Conclusion
- Issue Three – ownership of the Businesses following the execution of the Agreements
- Conclusion
- No provision in the Agreements for the transfer of the Businesses
- No provision in the Agreements for the transfer of assets other than Goodwill or the assumption of any liabilities
- No transfer of employees
- Did BBUK carry on the Businesses after the Agreements became effective?
- This meant that the only way that BBUK could carry on the Businesses was through CPW as its agent. In that regard, I do not doubt the fact that it is possible for a company to carry on a business thro
- Entitlement to the profits of the Businesses
- Conclusion in relation to the ability to dictate the overall strategy and direction of the Businesses and entitlement to the profits of the Businesses
- Final observations
- Conclusion
- Issue Four – assignment in equity
- Conclusion
- Issue Five – not the same asset
- Conclusion
- Issue Six – the relevance of the transaction effected by Agreements in the event that Section 179(3) applied
- Conclusion
- Issue Seven – the tax consequences of the transaction effected by Agreements in the event that Section 179(3) applied
- Conclusions
![TC09562 - [2025] UKFTT 00762 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)