The FTT has found for the taxpayer on the application of the TOAA code in two recent decisions which focused on fundamental requirements of the charge. It found that there was no transfer of assets by merely arranging matters, so that a purchase can be made using borrowed funds. Separately, in addressing whether income became payable to a person abroad, it looked at deductible costs in determining profits. Those aspects of the decisions turned on questions of fact on an area where the law was relatively clear. However, the FTT’s approach to the vaguer concept of tax avoidance demonstrates the difficulties facing taxpayers who want to rely on the motive defence. Finally, the conflicting approach to EU law by the same judge in the two cases also demonstrates the difficulties in identifying the scope of justifications for restrictions on freedom of movement and when proportionality is engaged.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
The FTT has found for the taxpayer on the application of the TOAA code in two recent decisions which focused on fundamental requirements of the charge. It found that there was no transfer of assets by merely arranging matters, so that a purchase can be made using borrowed funds. Separately, in addressing whether income became payable to a person abroad, it looked at deductible costs in determining profits. Those aspects of the decisions turned on questions of fact on an area where the law was relatively clear. However, the FTT’s approach to the vaguer concept of tax avoidance demonstrates the difficulties facing taxpayers who want to rely on the motive defence. Finally, the conflicting approach to EU law by the same judge in the two cases also demonstrates the difficulties in identifying the scope of justifications for restrictions on freedom of movement and when proportionality is engaged.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.jpg?sfvrsn=535d5660_1)
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
