In OI Iny v HMRC (No. 2) (TC02216 – 14 September) a property developer had acquired the shares in a newly incorporated UK company in 1993. In October 1994 he sold the shares to a Bahamian company. The consideration was expressed to be £20 000. The vendor did not declare a gain on his tax return. HMRC subsequently issued an assessment charging tax of £744 000 on the basis that the disposal was not at arm’s length so that the shares should be valued at their market value. The vendor appealed contending that the disposal should be treated as having been at arm’s length. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and rejected this contention finding that the vendor’s evidence was ‘implausible’ and that ‘his memory was selective’. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in principle subject...
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:
In OI Iny v HMRC (No. 2) (TC02216 – 14 September) a property developer had acquired the shares in a newly incorporated UK company in 1993. In October 1994 he sold the shares to a Bahamian company. The consideration was expressed to be £20 000. The vendor did not declare a gain on his tax return. HMRC subsequently issued an assessment charging tax of £744 000 on the basis that the disposal was not at arm’s length so that the shares should be valued at their market value. The vendor appealed contending that the disposal should be treated as having been at arm’s length. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and rejected this contention finding that the vendor’s evidence was ‘implausible’ and that ‘his memory was selective’. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in principle subject...
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:
