In A Berry v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 March) an individual (B) claimed that in 2003/04 he had made a loss of £400 000 as a result of certain transactions in discounted securities (‘gilt strips’). HMRC issued an amendment to his self-assessment rejecting the claim. B appealed. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed his appeal finding that B had entered into a ‘scheme’ which was ‘self-cancelling’. On the evidence ‘no loss was sustained by (B); nor was any amount paid by him for the gilt strips nor was there any transfer of the strips’. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision applying the principles laid down by the CA in Astall v HMRC [2010] STC 137.
Why it matters: The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-Tier Tribunal decision that the purported transactions here were artificial and were...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In A Berry v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 March) an individual (B) claimed that in 2003/04 he had made a loss of £400 000 as a result of certain transactions in discounted securities (‘gilt strips’). HMRC issued an amendment to his self-assessment rejecting the claim. B appealed. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed his appeal finding that B had entered into a ‘scheme’ which was ‘self-cancelling’. On the evidence ‘no loss was sustained by (B); nor was any amount paid by him for the gilt strips nor was there any transfer of the strips’. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision applying the principles laid down by the CA in Astall v HMRC [2010] STC 137.
Why it matters: The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-Tier Tribunal decision that the purported transactions here were artificial and were...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
