||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 126 (Jul)
|| EWCA Civ 927
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Andrew Morritt C, Hallett and Patten LJJ
||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.
||11 July 2012
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.
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,
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases