Sometimes the tribunal will adopt an impressionistic approach to interpreting the legislation, writes Stefano Mariani.
In Wintershall (E&P) v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0334 (TCC) (reported in Tax Journal 17 July 2015) the Upper Tribunal held that for the purposes of computing the supplementary charge under the petroleum revenue tax (PRT) regime the undefined words ‘profits of a ring fence trade’ should be read in light of the statutory schema of ICTA 1988 Chapter V as having the same meaning as ‘ring fence profits’. Ring fence profits were separately defined as including capital gains such that the capital gain realised from the disposal of an interest in a North Sea oilfield made by the taxpayer should fall within the ambit of the supplementary charge. On this footing the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal for in Lord Glennie’s words substantially the...
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:
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
Home >Articles > Wintershall and statutory construction: a reprise
Wintershall and statutory construction: a reprise
Sometimes the tribunal will adopt an impressionistic approach to interpreting the legislation, writes Stefano Mariani.
In Wintershall (E&P) v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0334 (TCC) (reported in Tax Journal 17 July 2015) the Upper Tribunal held that for the purposes of computing the supplementary charge under the petroleum revenue tax (PRT) regime the undefined words ‘profits of a ring fence trade’ should be read in light of the statutory schema of ICTA 1988 Chapter V as having the same meaning as ‘ring fence profits’. Ring fence profits were separately defined as including capital gains such that the capital gain realised from the disposal of an interest in a North Sea oilfield made by the taxpayer should fall within the ambit of the supplementary charge. On this footing the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal for in Lord Glennie’s words substantially the...
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:
