HMRC's guidance purports to be backed up by a Supreme Court
decision but it goes further than that, writes Simon Yeo (KPMG).
In Hannover Leasing [2019] UKFTT 262 (TC) a First-tier Tribunal case concerning SDLT on a combined steps transaction the taxpayer had argued that FA 2003 s 75A should be interpreted as anti-avoidance legislation. Where no tax was avoided because the legislation absent s 75A gave a tax result which was not contrary to the purpose of various reliefs and exemptions and combinations of them s 75A did not apply. If it did its purpose would be defeated. This was supported by HMRC’s then guidance which stated:
‘Section 75A is an anti-avoidance provision. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) therefore takes the view that it applies only where there is avoidance of tax. On that basis HMRC will not seek to apply s...
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:
HMRC's guidance purports to be backed up by a Supreme Court
decision but it goes further than that, writes Simon Yeo (KPMG).
In Hannover Leasing [2019] UKFTT 262 (TC) a First-tier Tribunal case concerning SDLT on a combined steps transaction the taxpayer had argued that FA 2003 s 75A should be interpreted as anti-avoidance legislation. Where no tax was avoided because the legislation absent s 75A gave a tax result which was not contrary to the purpose of various reliefs and exemptions and combinations of them s 75A did not apply. If it did its purpose would be defeated. This was supported by HMRC’s then guidance which stated:
‘Section 75A is an anti-avoidance provision. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) therefore takes the view that it applies only where there is avoidance of tax. On that basis HMRC will not seek to apply s...
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:
