Share this content
6

Interesting case re bank misselling compensation

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//judgmentfiles/j11797/TC07840.pdf

Didn't find your answer?

Taxpayer lost and the result & analysis looks right.

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//judgmentfiles/j11797/TC...

I guess there was lots of tax at stake, so worth a go!

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Duggimon
21st Sep 2020 12:21

Your rational tax URL is a redirect that, for me at least, triggers an anti-virus warning.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
21st Sep 2020 13:19

And me (although the preview suggests that the site is OK)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Duhamel
21st Sep 2020 14:39

Not sure this qualifies as interesting. Any other result would have been interesting, but incorrect.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Duhamel:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
22nd Sep 2020 09:21

It's interesting to see who doesn't find it interesting (of course it's interesting as RT says and I've been to tax seminars on this complex area and have seen much debate on this very issue)!

Reminds me of Greycon Ltd v Klaentschi (2003) SSCD 370 life policies taken out on the life of a director as a requirement to guarantee bank borrowings was for a capital purpose and therefore not taxable as part of the trading profits.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Duhamel
22nd Sep 2020 09:38

Funny, didn't you say the result of the tribunal was the right one?

You do yourself too much credit.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By richard thomas
21st Sep 2020 16:53

It is an interesting case, but not because it is wrong (which I think it is). It is interesting because it is one of the very few cases that deals with the treatment of derivatives in relation to an individual not a corporate. The Gadhavis v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 600 (TC) was another such case and is related to this one, but in the Gadhavis the ‘capital’ point was not run.

I think it is wrong because the compensation is for a capital item, not a revenue one. That is because the costs of a 5 year swap are capital on the clear authority of, especially, Pattison v Marine Midland Ltd (1983) 57 TC 219 , F W Woolworth Ltd v Beauchamp (Inspector of Taxes) (1989) 61 TC 542 and European Investment Trust Co Ltd v Jackson (1932) 18 TC 1. The reason why interest on a 5 year loan is not prohibited as capital is s 29 ITTOIA. But that does not apply to any other costs of finance. Thus the Donald Fisher principle does not apply.

Thanks (1)
Share this content

Related posts