.png)
.png)
Honest intentions…
KEY POINTS
- The defendant bought a contract for difference (CFD).
- HMRC contended that the main purpose or one of the main purposes of the contract was to secure a tax advantage contrary to TCGA 1992 s 16A.
- HMRC declined to argue that the arrangements were a sham.
- The prosecution conceded that those who devised the CFDs were not dishonest.
- A properly directed jury would struggle with the idea that the defendant had become dishonest when seeking to justify the contract.
- The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that it would not be seeking to resurrect the prosecution.
On 8 June 2017 an HMRC test case was brought to an ignominious end when Tomlinson J dismissed an indictment against the defendant C in R v C...
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.
