Share this content

Very interesting CoA residency tax avoidance case

Didn't find your answer?

I think I commented on the FTT/UT decisions previously. Due to the stupid new edit block feature I won't be commenting on it here (as I can no longer simply edit comments re typos etc.*). Except to say it doesn’t really seem to be on any points of law re M & C thankfully.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/1705.html

*Another example of how this once great website's usefulness gets more & more diminished by stupid, unnecessary changes.

Replies (18)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By richard thomas
16th Dec 2020 14:15

What is of most interest is the CA's slapping down of the UT for essentially overturning FTT decisions which find the facts and evaluate them without the UT showing why it was not a decision which the FTT was entitled to come to, even if they disagreed with it.

Too often they seem to bypass the Edwards v Bairstow test and find a somewhat spurious point of law on which to overturn it. If this sounds like sour grapes, it's because it is.

Thanks (0)
Replying to richard thomas:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Dec 2020 16:29

Yes indeed (although the FTT didn't escape some criticism either I think) and wouldn't it be funny if the SC in due course slaps down the CoA (as usually happens these days). An FTT judge once told me that he used to try very hard to word his judgments to make them difficult to overturn re EvB, but that doesn't work so well where the issue is heavily legal rather than factual of course.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
22nd Dec 2020 10:56

This TJ article sums things up very well re the FTT criticism point and it's this that's the really interesting thing about the case i.e. it could have easily gone the other way at FTT (and Nugee LJ (who is a pretty smart judge - unlike certain others) indicates it should have done based on the FTT's reasoning): https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/development-securities-company-resid...

See also this from: https://www.europeantax.blog/post/102gm4w/corporate-tax-residence-latest...

"...Nugee LJ agreed the UT got it wrong but clearly wanted to remit it to the FTT;"

Thanks (0)
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
16th Dec 2020 15:20

The problem is that you don't merely correct typos "etc" when you edit your comments, Justin.

If a comment is deserving of material alteration, that can easily be dealt with by a fresh post - which is just as quick as, if not quicker than, editing an existing post.

If you're still unhappy about the change, why not take your complaint to Fox News or NewsMax - they might give you some air time.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Dec 2020 16:21

You're wrong (as usual). If I make a material change significantly later you will find more often than not that I add (or at least used to add) "[Edit]".

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
17th Dec 2020 16:40

No idea which part of my comment you think is wrong, but hey ho.

I also made the point elsewhere that an amendment to a comment many months after the event, especially in a long thread, is very likely to go unread. If you want to draw an important change to folks' attention far better to post a new comment or better still a new thread. You may say I'm wrong if you wish.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Bob Loblaw
16th Dec 2020 15:39

Very interesting. Thanks Justin.

Thanks (0)
A Putey FACA
By Arthur Putey
16th Dec 2020 16:25

Its not that interesting that it needed posting 3 times :-)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Arthur Putey:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Dec 2020 16:14

Yes, but thanks to the new dumb edit block I now cannot convert the others into innocuous dots can I?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Dec 2020 17:01

I stand by my comments at 10:44, 15:03 and 17:17 on 15th Sep 2020 in this thread:
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/ppr-claim

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Dec 2020 16:02

As usual, I have no idea what you mean.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Dec 2020 16:00

I note Taxation Magazine agrees that (interesting though the case is) there are no new points of law here re CMC: https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/residence-is-matter-of-fact

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By unearned luck
17th Dec 2020 23:50

Your ability to misconstrue whatever you read knows no bounds. This is a bog standard case report; there is no editorial comment. Your claim that Taxation agrees with your view is unfounded.

Thanks (1)
Replying to unearned luck:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
18th Dec 2020 16:06

Eh? It says it's a matter of fact (i.e. no legal (case law interpretation etc.) issues there and FTT entitled to find UK residence on the facts per above comments). I recall you don't understand much.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By unearned luck
19th Dec 2020 13:03

Thank you for providing further evidence supporting my observation that you misconstrue everything you read. I assume that your comment is earnestly made and not tongue-in-cheek. The insult militates against there being any bonhomie in your post.

Printing a precis of a case is not commentating on it. It's very likely that Taxation does agree with you, but as the editors have not expressed an opinion, no one can say so for certain and you shouldn't have made the claim you did.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
18th Dec 2020 16:13

The stupid new edit block thing also means that trivial updates like this (see link below - again agreeing there's nothing changed re "rubber stamping" CMC law) unnecessarily go to the top of the recent posts list and so waste everyone's time.

https://www.step.org/industry-news/ewca-overturns-jersey-companies-tax-r...

Whose stupid idea was that again?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
18th Dec 2020 16:13

It it's a waste of time, then why bother making a trivial edit in the first place?

If I was going to edit a post (with something worth reading) I think that I would want to have it brought to folks' attention. Otherwse it seems rather pointless to edit a comment just for the sake of it.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
08th Jan 2021 14:58

TJ sums this up pretty well and one feels this is yet another case of a biased CoA (except for one of the three judges) finding an easy way to do down a tax avoidance scheme* and creating bad/confusing law in the process. (Having reflected on this I think it does effectively create new (bad) law after all re CMC as suggested by TJ and now all offshore subsidiary company decisions will need to go to town in their board minutes etc. re substantive decisions where action is required by their parent and even that may not be enough based on this dodgy looking CoA decision).

https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/development-securities-company-resid...

*Judges are in general sympathetic to HMRC’s essential point that this is tax avoidance and so cannot be allowed to succeed.

Thanks (0)
Share this content