Taxation logo taxation mission text

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


16 February 2006
Issue: 4045 / Categories: Forum & Feedback
Associated companies; curtilage; VAT; FRS5; Correspondence from readers on topical subjects.

Controlled response

I would suggest that the article by Barry Hallam 'Associated companies' ( Taxation 2 February 2006 page 441 ) has taken too extreme a view on the question of association and attribution. I believe that the following points should also be considered.

The wording of TA 1988 s 416 (6) which deals with the attribution of rights and powers is 'may' not 'shall'. Within  s 416 itself this different language is apparent as rights or powers of nominees 'shall'   be attributed s 416 (5).Therefore Parliament would appear to have wanted to give HMRC some leeway in considering whether or not to 'attribute'. If not why the difference in the statutory language?

The amended HMRC instruction at CTM60250 includes the statement that ' You should disregard combinations containing superfluous members ' . I would suggest that if Mr A and Mr B each...

If you or your firm subscribes to, 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 '' for further assistance.

back to top icon