Share this content
0
526

Interesting bare trust bank account payment case

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j10837/TC06873.pdf

Didn't find your answer?

Search AccountingWEB

A DoT over a bank account can be a payment e.g. re the 2019 loan charge.

https://www.accountancydaily.co/cch_uk/cln/news_007744_sinclair

Plus an interesting bare trust bank account case. See:

https://www.accountancydaily.co/cch_uk/cln/news_008052_tang

 

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Stepurhan
By stepurhan
02nd Jan 2019 21:24

Claim commenced 25/3/2011. (paragraph 12)

"Trust" established by e-mail (suspect in itself in my view) 30/3/2012. (paragraph 16)

Funds held in "trust" then used in a manner known to be inconsistent with said "trust" (paragraph 17)

The "trust" was ineffective in any case. (paragraphs 46 to 59)

An interesting case in that someone appears to have attempted to use a trust in a decidedly suspect manner and failed miserably.

I assume you disagree but since, as you do every time you share one of these links, you have not provided any of your own commentary, who knows.

Thanks (1)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
03rd Jan 2019 11:36

Anyone who reads the case and understands tax will know exactly what I am talking about here without any need for further comments. I won't comment further as you have trolling form here. See: https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/another-case-of-a-big-tax-li...

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/tax-avoidance-laid-bare-...

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By carnmores
03rd Jan 2019 12:13

I take exception to your comments for obvious reason. You have form. Stephs comments are perfectly valid.

Thanks (1)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By Dib
03rd Jan 2019 17:39

Valid, yes. Relevant, no!

The point Justin is making is covered in paras 55 to 59 of the decision - does a DoT create a payment? Answer appears to be "yes" but, unfortunately, there was no DoT in this case.

I for one though would appreciate Justin's explanation about the relevance of the case to the 2019 loan charge as it is not immediately obvious to me unless it is simply that the schemes never worked because DoT = (taxable) payment?

Thanks (0)
Share this content