header-logo header-logo

01 September 2017
Issue: 7759 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Capital gains tax

Trustees of Morrison 2002 Maintenance Trust and others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2017] UKUT 300 (TCC), [2017] All ER (D) 65 (Aug)

The First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(the FTT) had not erred in deciding that the transaction entered into by the trustees of a family trust and the settlor of those trusts, involving the disposal of certain shares effected by means of a tax avoidance scheme, had amounted to a single composite transaction in which the trustees had disposed of the shares at or about market value on which substantial capital gains tax (CGT) was chargeable. The Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber) so held in dismissing the appellants’ appeal against the FTT’s decision to uphold closure notices issued by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners amending the taxpayers’ self-assessment returns so as to increase the chargeable gains accruing for CGT.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll