Andy Wells examines the decision in Gripple v HMRC concerning R&D relief
The decision of Mr Justice Henderson in the High Court in the case of Gripple v HMRC [2010] EWHC 1609 (Ch) may not have raised many eyebrows and will pass into the annals of tax history without causing an earthquake. It concerned a claim for R&D relief under FA 2000 Sch 20. However the case is of interest for two reasons.
The first of these is to illustrate that the modern approach to statutory construction as enunciated by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson ([2005] 1 AC 684) is limited in cases in which there is a ‘detailed and meticulously drafted code’ within the legislation.
This may be significant if a tax scheme seeks to exploit a loophole in such a code. HMRC’s literal...
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:
Andy Wells examines the decision in Gripple v HMRC concerning R&D relief
The decision of Mr Justice Henderson in the High Court in the case of Gripple v HMRC [2010] EWHC 1609 (Ch) may not have raised many eyebrows and will pass into the annals of tax history without causing an earthquake. It concerned a claim for R&D relief under FA 2000 Sch 20. However the case is of interest for two reasons.
The first of these is to illustrate that the modern approach to statutory construction as enunciated by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson ([2005] 1 AC 684) is limited in cases in which there is a ‘detailed and meticulously drafted code’ within the legislation.
This may be significant if a tax scheme seeks to exploit a loophole in such a code. HMRC’s literal...
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:
