In Philip Shirley v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1023 – 11 November 2014 the FTT found that ITTOIA 2005 provisions which were unambiguous must be given their literal meaning regardless of the provisions before they were rewritten as part of the Tax Law Rewrite Project.
Mr Shirley was UK resident and was the life tenant and interest in possession beneficiary of two trusts. The appeal related to dividends arising on shares owned by the trust in companies resident in various territories and distributed by the trusts to Mr Shirley. The issue was whether Mr Shirley should be treated as if he had paid tax on the distributions (ITTOIA 2005 s 399). This in turn depended on whether s 399 could apply to dividends from non-UK resident companies.
ITTOIA 2005 is a rewrite of ICTA 1988. The FTT pointed out however...
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 Philip Shirley v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1023 – 11 November 2014 the FTT found that ITTOIA 2005 provisions which were unambiguous must be given their literal meaning regardless of the provisions before they were rewritten as part of the Tax Law Rewrite Project.
Mr Shirley was UK resident and was the life tenant and interest in possession beneficiary of two trusts. The appeal related to dividends arising on shares owned by the trust in companies resident in various territories and distributed by the trusts to Mr Shirley. The issue was whether Mr Shirley should be treated as if he had paid tax on the distributions (ITTOIA 2005 s 399). This in turn depended on whether s 399 could apply to dividends from non-UK resident companies.
ITTOIA 2005 is a rewrite of ICTA 1988. The FTT pointed out however...
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:
