In R Audley v HMRC (TC01084 – 20 April) an individual entered into a tax avoidance scheme marketed by an accountancy firm under which he transferred his house (which was valued at £1 800 000) and £250 000 in cash to a family trust in return for a loan note. He subsequently submitted a tax return claiming that he had made a tax loss of more than £2 000 000 on the disposal of a ‘relevant discounted security’.
HMRC rejected his claim and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal applying the principles laid down by the CA in Astall v HMRC [2010] STC 137.
Judge Kempster held that the terms of the loan note ‘were artificial’ and only £35 700 of the alleged consideration was actually paid for the acquisition of the loan note.
...
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 R Audley v HMRC (TC01084 – 20 April) an individual entered into a tax avoidance scheme marketed by an accountancy firm under which he transferred his house (which was valued at £1 800 000) and £250 000 in cash to a family trust in return for a loan note. He subsequently submitted a tax return claiming that he had made a tax loss of more than £2 000 000 on the disposal of a ‘relevant discounted security’.
HMRC rejected his claim and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal applying the principles laid down by the CA in Astall v HMRC [2010] STC 137.
Judge Kempster held that the terms of the loan note ‘were artificial’ and only £35 700 of the alleged consideration was actually paid for the acquisition of the loan note.
...
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:
