BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> MR KEVIN JOHN PITT v Revenue & Customs (TAX AVOIDANCE - income tax - whether or not a loss arose under paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996 on the acquisition and disposal of relevant discounted securities) [2022] UKFTT 222 (TC) (19 July 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2022/TC08544.html Cite as: [2022] UKFTT 222 (TC) |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
| Decision Number: | TC 08544 |
| Appellant: | MR KEVIN JOHN PITT |
| Respondent: | Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
|
Chairmen / Special Commissioners: |
Tony BEARE |
| Date Of Decision: | 19/07/2022 |
| Main Category: | PROCEDURE |
| Main Subcategory: | Other |
| Notes: | TAX AVOIDANCE - income tax - whether or not a loss arose under paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996 on the acquisition and disposal of relevant discounted securities - held that, on the basis of a purposive construction of the relevant legislation and a realistic view of the facts, no loss arose - for the purposes of the relevant legislation, the Appellant did not in fact acquire the securities and, even if he had, the amount which he had paid in respect of the issue of the securities was the same as the amount deemed to be received for them on disposal - appeal dismissed - penalty for failure to take the necessary corrective action after a follower notice - held that Audley v HMRC was a prior relevant judicial ruling in relation to the follower notice and it was not reasonable in all the circumstances for the Appellant to have failed to take the necessary corrective action following his receipt of the follower notice so that the conditions for a penalty to be assessed had been met - in addition, the quantum of the penalty was appropriate - the Respondents' decision to limit the mitigation for the Appellant's co-operation because of the Appellant's failure to take the necessary corrective action was appropriate - appeal dismissed |
