In Mehjoo v Harben Barker (A2/2013/1863 – 25 March 2014) the court of appeal held that Mr Mehjoo’s accountants (HB) had not been under a duty to recommend tax planning.
Mr Mehjoo was not domiciled in the UK and therefore he could have avoided a substantial CGT liability by entering into a bearer warrant scheme (BWS) on the sale of shares in a UK company. The scheme essentially changed the situs of the registered shares by converting them into bearer shares and then bearer warrants which were kept outside the UK. This meant that they were not subject to CGT on disposal by a non-domiciled individual.
It was accepted that HB was not retained to give tax advice and that it could not be expected to have known about the scheme. However Mr Mehjoo alleged that it should have advised...
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 Mehjoo v Harben Barker (A2/2013/1863 – 25 March 2014) the court of appeal held that Mr Mehjoo’s accountants (HB) had not been under a duty to recommend tax planning.
Mr Mehjoo was not domiciled in the UK and therefore he could have avoided a substantial CGT liability by entering into a bearer warrant scheme (BWS) on the sale of shares in a UK company. The scheme essentially changed the situs of the registered shares by converting them into bearer shares and then bearer warrants which were kept outside the UK. This meant that they were not subject to CGT on disposal by a non-domiciled individual.
It was accepted that HB was not retained to give tax advice and that it could not be expected to have known about the scheme. However Mr Mehjoo alleged that it should have advised...
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:
