UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000031 - [2024] UKUT 00168 (TCC)
Fecha: 13-Mar-2024
Heading

UT (Tax & Chancery) Case Number: UT-2023-000031
TAX AVOIDANCE – INCOME TAX – loss determination on disposal of gilt strips – paragraph 14A Schedule 13 Finance Act 1996 – grant of option to trustee followed by assignment of option to a third party purchaser – payments made by purchaser to trustee for assignment of option to purchase and to taxpayer for exercise of the option - whether the FTT erred in including the amount paid by the purchaser to the trustee as a person other than the transferor as part of the ‘amount payable on the transfer’ under para 14A(3)(b) – appeal dismissed
Hearing venue: The Rolls Building
London EC4A 1NL
Heard on: 12-13 March 2024
Judgment on 12 June 2024
Before
JUDGE RUPERT JONES
JUDGE ASHLEY GREENBANK
Between
TIMOTHY WATTS
Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Aparna Nathan KC and Colm Kelly, Counsel, instructed by Anthony Collins solicitors
For the Respondent: Jonathan Davey KC and Joshua Carey, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
DECISION
- Heading
- Introduction
- Grounds of Appeal
- Factual findings of the FTT
- The Law
- Discussion and Analysis
- Ground 3 - the FTT erred in concluding that “the amount payable on the transfer” as found in paragraph 14A(3) Schedule 13 FA 1996 was a commercial concept ([166] and [171]), with “transfer” to be give
- Our Analysis
- Our Analysis
- In my judgment
- The principle is twofold; and it applies to the interpretation of any statutory provision
- Ground 2 – the FTT erred in concluding that it was bound by Berry v HMRC [2011] STC 1057 ([157]) given that the approach of Lewison J (as he then was) in Berry was inconsistent with the correct approa
- The Appellant’s argument
- Our Analysis
- The principles that I derive from Berry are therefore as follows
- The FTT stated at [176]
- Conclusions