.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.
