Richard Curtis

Correspondence from readers on topical subjects.

Another wee dram

I have read your editorial (Taxation, 27 October 2005, page 83) concerning HMRC v William Grant & Sons, Distillers. I am not sure that I can agree with your conclusion that the majority view of the Court of Session is in error.
It seems to me that the purpose of the add-back of depreciation is to establish the profit before any deduction for 'any sum employed or intended to be employed as capital in the trade' i.e. the 'consumption' of the fixed assets.

RICHARD CURTIS wonders whether the flat taxes wind from the east threatens our progressive tax régime.

Agony uncle RICHARD CURTIS wonders if men and women and same-sex couples can ever have a meaningful fiscal relationship without tax rearing its ugly head.

THE TAXPAYER IN the recent case of PM v UK ([2005] All ER (D) 255 (Jul)), is described as having 'lived in a stable relationship with Miss D' between 1987 and 1997. They were not married and in June 1991,

RICHARD CURTIS reviews the decision in B E Studios Ltd v Smith & Williamson Ltd.

B E STUDIOS LTD (BES) was incorporated in June 1999 to specialise in the design, production and sale of software for computer games and other commercial uses. After starting on a relatively small scale it started to recruit staff and this process was complete by June 2000. In October 2000, the company retained chartered accountants, Smith & Williamson Ltd, (S & W) to provide tax, financial planning and accountancy advice.

RICHARD CURTIS drills into the tax implications of the Shell and Royal Dutch Petroleum merger.