In Bluesparkle Ltd v HMRC (TC01743 – 24 January) a company (B) agreed to purchase the freehold of a hospital from a subsidiary company (L) in 2001 paying part of the purchase price immediately and the remainder in three instalments from 2005 to 2007. In 2005 B and L modified the agreement and described £400 000 of the amount due from B to L as a ‘premium’. B claimed a deduction for this amount in computing its profits. HMRC issued a closure notice rejecting the claim on the basis that the expenditure was capital. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed B’s appeal against this decision. Judge Cornwell-Kelly observed that the terms of the agreement ‘were evidently not typical of a bargain made at arms’ length and were in fact devised with VAT avoidance in mind’. He held that ‘on the face...
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 Bluesparkle Ltd v HMRC (TC01743 – 24 January) a company (B) agreed to purchase the freehold of a hospital from a subsidiary company (L) in 2001 paying part of the purchase price immediately and the remainder in three instalments from 2005 to 2007. In 2005 B and L modified the agreement and described £400 000 of the amount due from B to L as a ‘premium’. B claimed a deduction for this amount in computing its profits. HMRC issued a closure notice rejecting the claim on the basis that the expenditure was capital. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed B’s appeal against this decision. Judge Cornwell-Kelly observed that the terms of the agreement ‘were evidently not typical of a bargain made at arms’ length and were in fact devised with VAT avoidance in mind’. He held that ‘on the face...
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:
