The scheme involved ‘gifting’ gilts to a charity subject to option and security arrangements which ensured that 99% of the gilts would be passed on to a trust set up for the benefit of Mr Ferguson and his family. The scheme sought to take advantage of legislation which allows a tax deduction for assets gifted to charities.
The First-tier Tribunal found that the overall effect of the transaction did not satisfy the requirements of the ‘gift to charity’ rules.
Financial Secretary to the Treasury Nicky Morgan MP said: ‘The government has provided charitable tax reliefs to encourage people to give to charities. We will not tolerate abuse of these incentives for the purposes of tax avoidance. While the vast majority of people pay the taxes they owe, this victory shows HMRC’s determination and effectiveness in clamping down on those who seek to avoid their responsibilities. This was another scheme that wasn’t worth investing in and, as well as the fees investors will have paid to the promoters, they will now have to pay the tax owed as well as interest.’
The scheme, marketed by NT Advisors, is thought to have been implemented by 60 participants. The hearing on the lead case took place last December, but the decision has not yet been released.
The scheme involved ‘gifting’ gilts to a charity subject to option and security arrangements which ensured that 99% of the gilts would be passed on to a trust set up for the benefit of Mr Ferguson and his family. The scheme sought to take advantage of legislation which allows a tax deduction for assets gifted to charities.
The First-tier Tribunal found that the overall effect of the transaction did not satisfy the requirements of the ‘gift to charity’ rules.
Financial Secretary to the Treasury Nicky Morgan MP said: ‘The government has provided charitable tax reliefs to encourage people to give to charities. We will not tolerate abuse of these incentives for the purposes of tax avoidance. While the vast majority of people pay the taxes they owe, this victory shows HMRC’s determination and effectiveness in clamping down on those who seek to avoid their responsibilities. This was another scheme that wasn’t worth investing in and, as well as the fees investors will have paid to the promoters, they will now have to pay the tax owed as well as interest.’
The scheme, marketed by NT Advisors, is thought to have been implemented by 60 participants. The hearing on the lead case took place last December, but the decision has not yet been released.
