Taxation logo taxation mission text

Since 1927 the leading authority on tax law, practice and administration

A little laconic

24 March 2005 / Richard Curtis
Issue: 4000 / Categories: Tax cases
RICHARD CURTIS reviews the decision in Hicks v Davies .

THE PURPOSE OF TCGA 1992 s 106A is — as is probably well-known — to prevent capital gains tax advantages being obtained from 'bed and breakfast' transactions; that is capital gains or losses being crystallised at convenient points but such that the shareholding before and after remains substantially the same.

In the autumn of 2000 Mr Hicks transferred 100 000 shares in AIT into two settlements and held over the gain. Shortly afterwards the UK trustees of the settlements sold the shares. The following day the UK trustees retired and new trustees — resident in Mauritius — were appointed. They immediately repurchased as many of the same class of shares as the net proceeds of the previous sale allowed. (The double taxation agreement with Mauritius has since been changed.)

The tax returns of the settlements stated that no capital gains arose because the consideration...

If you or your firm subscribes to Taxation.co.uk, please click the login box below:

If you are not a subscriber but are a registered user or have a free trial, 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 item in full.

Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.

back to top icon