In Fisher v HMRC, the Supreme Court confirmed that the primary charging provision in the transfer of assets abroad regime still contains a requirement for the individual to have made a transfer of assets and that a transfer by a company cannot be treated as a transfer made by its shareholders. The court preferred to restrict the legislation to provide certainty in its application, rather than leaving it unclear as a deterrent against tax avoidance. If HMRC consider that this leaves a lacuna in the legislation then Parliament must fill it in a fair, appropriate and workable manner.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
In Fisher v HMRC, the Supreme Court confirmed that the primary charging provision in the transfer of assets abroad regime still contains a requirement for the individual to have made a transfer of assets and that a transfer by a company cannot be treated as a transfer made by its shareholders. The court preferred to restrict the legislation to provide certainty in its application, rather than leaving it unclear as a deterrent against tax avoidance. If HMRC consider that this leaves a lacuna in the legislation then Parliament must fill it in a fair, appropriate and workable manner.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
