Just as advisers contemplate the forthcoming demise of the remittance basis, the Upper Tribunal has rejected HMRC’s appeal in the sole case to have considered ITA 2007 s 809L. The FTT’s wide definition of ‘services’, in the context of when a ‘service’ is provided in the UK, has been restricted so that remittance Condition A should be narrowly construed. The UT explained it is not an anti-avoidance provision. The UT would, however, have permitted a wider tracing exercise to determine whether funds derived from the taxpayer’s gains, so remittance Condition B will still need forensic application in circumstances where Condition A is fulfilled.
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Just as advisers contemplate the forthcoming demise of the remittance basis, the Upper Tribunal has rejected HMRC’s appeal in the sole case to have considered ITA 2007 s 809L. The FTT’s wide definition of ‘services’, in the context of when a ‘service’ is provided in the UK, has been restricted so that remittance Condition A should be narrowly construed. The UT explained it is not an anti-avoidance provision. The UT would, however, have permitted a wider tracing exercise to determine whether funds derived from the taxpayer’s gains, so remittance Condition B will still need forensic application in circumstances where Condition A is fulfilled.
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
