the agreements
the agreements
Introduction
Over the period between CPW’s acquisition of the Businesses from the Vendor Companies between 2004 and 2007 and the decision of the CPW Group to enter into the joint venture which led to the Degrouping in 2008, changing market conditions and falling profits had led the value of the Goodwill to decline considerably. At the point of its acquisition, the Goodwill had had a value of £107,658,000, as noted in paragraph 10(2) above. By the time that CPW was going to leave the CPW Chargeable Gains Group, the Goodwill was valued at approximately £50,800,000. This meant that, if CPW were to leave the CPW Chargeable Gains Group holding the Goodwill, CPW would become liable to a charge to corporation tax under Section 179(3) on value which no longer existed.
It is common ground that:
the transaction which was effected by the Agreements was designed to avoid that liability. It was intended that:
by disposing of the Goodwill under the Agreements, CPW would incur a liability to corporation tax on chargeable gains on the amount by which the consideration received by CPW for the Goodwill (£50,799,000) exceeded CPW’s base cost in the Goodwill (nil); and
no charge to corporation tax on chargeable gains would arise in the hands of CPW in respect of the Goodwill when the Degrouping occurred because CPW no longer held the Goodwill at that point; and
the Agreements were executed as part of a single transaction and designed as a “package”. They:
were executed on the same date – 25 June 2008;
were intended to take effect at the same time;
were interdependent; and
should consequently be construed together.
- 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)