www.europeantax.blog Open in urlscan Pro
52.215.91.92  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience,
we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.


EUROPEAN TAX

Welcome to the European Tax Blog.

Some of Europe's brightest legal minds look at the tax issues across Europe
which could impact multinational businesses.

All Posts Subscribe

9 de agosto, 2022 | 3 minutes read


EUROMONEY: TAXPAYER PREVAILS BEFORE THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

1
17

Tanja Velling
Senior Professional Support Lawyer
Tanja Velling
Senior Professional Support Lawyer

At first instance, Euromoney had been decided in favour of the taxpayer and my
colleague’s post on the decision surmised that “HMRC may be so disheartened by
the FTT’s factual findings that they abandon the fight”. This did not come to
pass. HMRC appealed the FTT’s decision and the Upper Tribunal has now decided
this appeal in favour of the taxpayer.

The taxpayer had proposed to sell its stake in two companies, CNL and CDL. A
deal was agreed pursuant to which CNL was to be sold for cash and CDL for cash
and shares. The sale of CNL qualified for the substantial shareholding exemption
(SSE) in the normal way, but the sale of CDL did not, meaning that a tax charge
would have arisen in respect of the cash element of the CDL consideration (with
the share element qualifying for roll-over treatment). The tax director of the
taxpayer’s parent became involved and suggested replacing that cash element with
a preference share issue. The intended result was that the sale of CDL would, as
a share-for-share exchange, qualify for roll-over treatment in its entirety. The
preference shares could then be redeemed for cash 12 months later with the
benefit of SSE. In this way, no tax charge would arise.

HMRC sought to deny roll-over treatment on the basis that “the exchange [forms]
part of a scheme or arrangements of which the main purpose, or one of the main
purposes, is avoidance of liability to capital gains tax or corporation tax”
(section 137(1) TCGA 1992). The parties agreed that the “exchange” for these
purposes was the exchange of the taxpayer’s stake in CDL for ordinary and
preference shares – so, if HMRC had succeeded, roll-over treatment would have
been denied in respect of the entire consideration received by the taxpayer for
its stake in CDL (and not only in respect of the preference share issue that had
replaced the cash element). On this basis, rather than saving £2.8m of tax, the
inclusion of the preference shares in the deal would have cost the taxpayer
£7.7m.

The FTT approached the application of the purpose test in section 137(1) TCGA
1992 in two steps:

 * Was the exchange part of a scheme or arrangements and if so what were they?
 * Did the purposes of such scheme or arrangements include the purpose of
   avoiding a liability to capital gains tax and if so was it a main purpose?

The UT confirmed that this was the correct approach. It rejected – in my view,
correctly – a more complicated construction of the statutory provision that HMRC
had argued for and which would have involved the FTT in the identification of
all schemes of which the exchange could realistically form part (with the result
that the purpose test would be failed if tax avoidance was the main purpose of
one of the identified candidate schemes).

The two steps involve questions of fact which are for the FTT to determine. The
first involves the application of ordinary words of the English language. In
respect of the second, the UT confirmed that the purposes of the scheme or
arrangements as a whole – and not of individual constituent steps – are the ones
that are relevant, but it left open whether identifying the relevant purposes
involves an objective or subjective test or a combination of the two (the case
had proceeded on the assumption that it was a purely subjective test).

HMRC failed to persuade the UT that the FTT’s factual findings in respect of
either step should be disturbed. The UT indicated that HMRC’s contention that
the preference share issue (i.e. part of the exchange) should be regarded as the
scheme or arrangements does not sit well with the statutory language and, in
determining whether the tax avoidance purpose which clearly existed (the
taxpayer did not deny that the only reason for the switch from cash to
preference shares was the intended tax saving) was one of the main purposes of
the scheme/arrangements, the FTT had been entitled to take into account the
relative size of the tax advantage in the context of the deal, the taxpayer’s
failure to identify the potential downside of jeopardizing roll-over treatment
for the entire exchange and the proportion of time and expense spent on the
preference share issue.

When commenting on the FTT decision, my colleague stated that the identification
of “arrangements” is “a question which has received remarkably little judicial
attention”. The UT’s decision does not provide much guidance on this question,
either, but it appears to provide a reason why such guidance is scarce – because
“There is no substitute for the words of the statute which set out a
straightforward test”. As this case shows, the application of this test is not,
however, always straightforward…




TAGS

purpose test, uk tax, slaughterandmay
Tanja Velling
Senior Professional Support Lawyer
Tanja Velling
Senior Professional Support Lawyer



LATEST INSIGHTS

18 Aug 2022


UK ADVANCES MULTINATIONAL TOP-UP TAX DESPITE MOSTLY A LACK OF PROGRESS ELSEWHERE

By Zoe Andrews Tom Gilliver
2
1

3
29 Jul 2022


BLACKROCK REVISITED: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE “UNALLOWABLE PURPOSE” RULE?

By Tom Gilliver
2
1
5
5

11
15 Jul 2022


ENERGY (OIL AND GAS) PROFITS LEVY ACT 2022

By Zoe Andrews
1
3
2

6
15 Jul 2022


STOP THE PRESS! TAXPAYER WINS RAMSAY APPEAL ON DISCLOSED AVOIDANCE SCHEME

By Mike Lane
2
53

55

Content on this Blog is for general information and is not intended to provide
legal advice. For further information, please contact the relevant Blog post
author or your usual contact at the relevant firm.

The copyright of each Blog post is owned by the firm who has contributed it.