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

Connected companies

© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.

05 May 2009

Issue: 4204 / Categories: Tax cases , Business , Income Tax

Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (UK) Ltd v CRC, Chancery Division, 24 March 2009

Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings Ltd a UK-resident wholly-owned subsidiary of H Co a US multi-national company acted as the holding company for various UK subsidiaries.

In 1995 a corporate reorganisation took place and shares in two of Kellogg’s subsidiaries were transferred to a new UK-resident company HHUKL a subsidiary of another newly created company in the US HIG.

Kellogg made a loss on the sale of these shares and wished to offset that loss against subsequent chargeable gains in its accounting period ended 31 December 2001.

HMRC did not allow the claim on the basis that Kellogg and HIG (and thereby HHUKL) were connected persons within TCGA 1992 s 18(3).

The Special Commissioner dismissed the company’s appeal.

In the appeal to the High Court Sir Andrew Morritt C agreed with the Special Commissioner.

He said that the relevant time for...

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:

Subscribe Now...

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.

Connected companies

© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.

05 May 2009

Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (UK) Ltd v CRC, Chancery Division, 24 March 2009

Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings Ltd a UK-resident wholly-owned subsidiary of H Co a US multi-national company acted as the holding company for various UK subsidiaries.

In 1995 a corporate reorganisation took place and shares in two of Kellogg’s subsidiaries were transferred to a new UK-resident company HHUKL a subsidiary of another newly created company in the US HIG.

Kellogg made a loss on the sale of these shares and wished to offset that loss against subsequent chargeable gains in its accounting period ended 31 December 2001.

HMRC did not allow the claim on the basis that Kellogg and HIG (and thereby HHUKL) were connected persons within TCGA 1992 s 18(3).

The Special Commissioner dismissed the company’s appeal.

In the appeal to the High Court Sir Andrew Morritt C agreed with the Special Commissioner.

He said that the relevant time for...

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:

Subscribe Now...

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.

Issue:

4204

Categories: Tax cases [1] , Business [2] , Income Tax [3]

SourceURL:

Links:

READERS' FORUM premium icon

Practice tip: Increase the perceived value of your services Readers’ forum: Possibility of mixed-use relief claim Readers’ forum: Do I need to inform HMRC of ex clients’ death? Readers forum: Why can’t HMRC get the simple things right Readers’ forum: VAT problem created by disbursement mark-up?

FIVE WAYS TO MAKE ACCOUNTS PRODUCTION AND TAX EASIER.
Download the exclusive Xero
free report here.

New queries

Please email any questions you might have
to: taxation@lexisnexis.co.uk.

NEWS

Estimated £1bn ‘cost’ of non-dom status reform challenged Reform of R&D advance assurance scheme is needed HMRC checking remittance basis claims High earners may need to file 2021-22 returns by 29 September ATT publishes Budget recommendations

Third slide

Deadline dates for October 2024

CASES

Were Covid trading problems a ‘reasonable excuse’ for paying VAT late? Third-party application for redaction of information fails Taxpayer did not cease to be resident in the UK Taxpayer’s challenge to penalties fails Do related party rules apply?

MOST POPULAR

Were Covid trading problems a ‘reasonable excuse’ for paying VAT late? Third-party application for redaction of information fails Taxpayer did not cease to be resident in the UK Taxpayer’s challenge to penalties fails Do related party rules apply?

back to top icon