Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 126 (Jul)
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWCA Civ 927
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Andrew Morritt C, Hallett and Patten LJJ

Representation David Goldberg QC (instructed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal LLP) for the taxpayer.
  Julian Ghosh QC and Raymond Hill (instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to the Revenue and Customs) for the Revenue.
Judgment Dates: 11 July 2012

Catchwords

Capital gains tax - Tax avoidance scheme - Composite transaction - Preordained series of transactions - Taxpayer claiming entitlement to loss suffered from gain made on four options - Revenue and Custom Commissioners deciding loss not allowable - Revenue's decision upheld by Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) - Whether four option transactions to be treated as single composite transaction - Whether taxpayer's loss allowable - Taxation of Capital Gains Tax 1992, ss 2, 16.

The Case

Capital gains tax Tax avoidance scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against the decision by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) that he was not entitled to allowable capital loss on his chargeable gain on the basis that, as established by the principle in Ramsay PVT Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners[, the composite transaction in question from which the gain was derived was not one to which the relevant provisions of the applied so as to give rise to the loss claimed by the taxpayer,

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.