On the face of it the taxpayer’s victory in the case of Altrad Services Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKUT 185 (TCC) may appear surprising. The case involves an artificial series of transactions (duly disclosed under DOTAS) which the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found to be devoid of business purpose and which were effected just to achieve a ‘magical’ uplift in qualifying expenditure for capital allowances purposes. HMRC was successful before the FTT in arguing that the scheme failed based on the Ramsay line of cases but the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the taxpayers’ appeal criticising both the way the FTT applied the two-step Ramsay approach (whether the facts viewed realistically answer the statutory description interpreted purposively) and the way HMRC formulated the...
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:
On the face of it the taxpayer’s victory in the case of Altrad Services Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKUT 185 (TCC) may appear surprising. The case involves an artificial series of transactions (duly disclosed under DOTAS) which the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found to be devoid of business purpose and which were effected just to achieve a ‘magical’ uplift in qualifying expenditure for capital allowances purposes. HMRC was successful before the FTT in arguing that the scheme failed based on the Ramsay line of cases but the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the taxpayers’ appeal criticising both the way the FTT applied the two-step Ramsay approach (whether the facts viewed realistically answer the statutory description interpreted purposively) and the way HMRC formulated the...
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: