In HMRC v Cellcom Ltd (aka HMRC v N Begum & Others) (Ch D – 15 July) HMRC was undertaking an enquiry into a complex series of transactions which appeared to constitute MTIC fraud.
It lodged a claim under Insolvency Act 1986 s 423 against a company (C) which they considered had acted as a ‘buffer trader’ in the chain on the basis that it had entered into certain transactions by which it transferred £10 000 000 to a settlement (B) with a Gibraltar trustee ‘for the purposes of putting assets beyond the reach of the Commissioners’.
HMRC subsequently applied to amend its particulars of claim on the basis that the transfers had not been made directly to the settlement but to a British Virgin Islands company which was wholly owned by B’s trustee. C opposed the application...
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 HMRC v Cellcom Ltd (aka HMRC v N Begum & Others) (Ch D – 15 July) HMRC was undertaking an enquiry into a complex series of transactions which appeared to constitute MTIC fraud.
It lodged a claim under Insolvency Act 1986 s 423 against a company (C) which they considered had acted as a ‘buffer trader’ in the chain on the basis that it had entered into certain transactions by which it transferred £10 000 000 to a settlement (B) with a Gibraltar trustee ‘for the purposes of putting assets beyond the reach of the Commissioners’.
HMRC subsequently applied to amend its particulars of claim on the basis that the transfers had not been made directly to the settlement but to a British Virgin Islands company which was wholly owned by B’s trustee. C opposed the application...
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:
