Ramsay defeated

[webberg]

http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...78/TC04302.pdf

The above case concerns attempts by a property group to avoid tax on the sale of properties to British Land.

They were challenged by HMRC on the grounds that the complicated structure that sought to use the group relief provisions should be ignored due to the tax avoidance purpose.

HMRC lost the case. The Judge decided that, even though the result was "unsatisfactory", he had to find for the taxpayer as the group relief rules created an artificial situation and was a self sustaining code to which commercial motives cannot be applied. see para 143.

Following from Tower Radio, are we seeing some ground being recovered?

Too early to say and this case will be appealed, but a good reason to continue a debate with HMRC rather than fold.

[lilikins1]

[StrengthInNumbers]

This was expected. As things will move through the courts HMRC will find this increasingly difficult.

What will happen to all budgets which are planned based on counting future tax collection now and assuming HMRC figures are correct?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC are probably going to find that many cases will now go to tribunal which they wouldn't have chosen.

No more cherry picking. Lots of rotten fruit.

[northernladuk]

Am not sure that HMRC loosing a large chunk of income through a complex tax avoidance strategy is really a banana moment. The money would have gone to the public purse so could argue we all lose out.

The outcome even admits it's a tax avoidance measure. It's just Parliment's definition of groups have allowed them to exploit a legal but not moral loophole. Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.

143. For all the reasons given above I must allow this appeal. That will no doubt be
viewed as an unsatisfactory result given the tax avoidance motive of the Appellants.
35 However it follows from the way in which Parliament has defined groups for group
relief purposes.

[regron]

.....Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.

Anything HMRC lose these days is a victory in my eyes

[RoastedSlopes]

Am not sure that HMRC loosing a large chunk of income through a complex tax avoidance strategy is really a banana moment. The money would have gone to the public purse so could argue we all lose out.

The outcome even admits it's a tax avoidance measure. It's just Parliment's definition of groups have allowed them to exploit a legal but not moral loophole. Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.

Thank you for your input , but close the loopholes so that people do not enter into such agreements, don't ruin the lives of 'real' people no law was broken!! (At the time)

[squirrel]

Am not sure that HMRC loosing a large chunk of income through a complex tax avoidance strategy is really a banana moment. The money would have gone to the public purse so could argue we all lose out.

The outcome even admits it's a tax avoidance measure. It's just Parliment's definition of groups have allowed them to exploit a legal but not moral loophole. Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.

Oh dear. So many things wrong with your post, I couldn't possibly know where to start. if you hadn't posted so often in the past I would have thought you were trolling.

[northernladuk]

Am not trolling just not subscribing to throwing a party everytime HMRC lose something. There are genuine tax evaders out there. I'd be happy to hear your comments. If HMRC are wholly wrong here I'm big enough to accept it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

There are genuine tax evaders out there.

Genuine tax evader? Tax evasion is a criminal offence.