TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Taxpayers' Transactions Deemed Tax-Recovery Devices, Not Trading: Finance Act, 1960</h1> <h3>Lupton Versus F.A. & A.B. Ltd.</h3> Lupton Versus F.A. & A.B. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the transaction was an adventure 'in the nature of trade' or merely a tax-recovery device.2. The relevance and application of section 341 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.3. Comparison with previous case laws, specifically J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd. v. Griffiths and Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners.4. The impact of the Finance Act, 1960, on the transaction.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the transaction was an adventure 'in the nature of trade' or merely a tax-recovery device:The taxpayers, F. A. & A. B. Ltd., engaged in a series of transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares, specifically designed to recover tax from the revenue. The transactions were highly complex and involved multiple companies within the Spencer Wire group, ultimately aiming to strip a dividend of lb800,000 net of tax. The key question was whether these transactions constituted an adventure 'in the nature of trade' or were merely tax-recovery devices.The court found that the transactions were not trading activities but were solely designed for tax recovery. The taxpayers' argument that the transaction was indistinguishable from J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd. v. Griffiths was rejected. The court emphasized that if a transaction is, in truth, a tax-recovery device and nothing else, it remains so, even if it appears to be a trade on the surface. The court concluded that the taxpayers were engaged in dividend-stripping transactions and not in any form of trade.2. The relevance and application of section 341 of the Income Tax Act, 1952:The taxpayers claimed that their loss on the value of the shares should be considered a trade loss under section 341 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. They argued that their transaction was similar to the one in the Harrison case, where the House of Lords held that a dividend-stripping transaction resulted in a trade loss.However, the court distinguished the present case from the Harrison case, noting that the taxpayers were established share dealers and not merely engaging in a one-off transaction. The court emphasized that the transaction must be genuine and substantial trading in shares to qualify as a trade loss. The court found that the taxpayers' transaction was a tax-recovery device and not a genuine trading activity, thus not qualifying for relief under section 341.3. Comparison with previous case laws:The court compared the present case with J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd. v. Griffiths and Finsbury Securities Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners. In the Harrison case, the transaction was considered a trade because the purchasing company had genuinely changed its way of life to engage in share dealing. In contrast, the Finsbury case involved transactions that were purely tax-recovery devices without any genuine trading activity.The court found that the present case was more akin to the Finsbury case, where the transactions were designed solely for tax recovery. The court noted that the taxpayers' transaction involved an agreement to split the recovered tax between the dealers and the shareholders, similar to the Finsbury case. The court concluded that the taxpayers' transaction was a tax-recovery device and not a genuine trade.4. The impact of the Finance Act, 1960, on the transaction:The court noted that the Finance Act, 1960, had closed the loophole for 'forward stripping' transactions, which the taxpayers had exploited. The taxpayers' transaction took place just before the Budget, anticipating the changes in the law. The court emphasized that the timing and structure of the transaction indicated that it was designed to take advantage of the existing tax laws before the Finance Act, 1960, came into effect.The court concluded that the transaction was a tax-recovery device and not a genuine trading activity. The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of Megarry J., finding that the taxpayers were engaged in dividend-stripping transactions and not in any form of trade.Separate Judgments:- Lord Denning M.R.: Concluded that the taxpayers were engaged in dividend-stripping and not in any form of trade. Emphasized the distinction between genuine trading activities and tax-recovery devices.- Sachs L.J.: Highlighted the differences between the present case and the Harrison case. Emphasized the importance of genuine trading activities and concluded that the taxpayers' transaction was a tax-recovery device.- Phillimore L.J.: Agreed with the conclusions of Lord Denning M.R. and Sachs L.J. Emphasized the factual background and the intent behind the taxpayers' transaction, concluding that it was a tax-recovery device.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs, and leave to appeal was granted. The court found that the taxpayers were engaged in dividend-stripping transactions and not in any form of trade, thus not qualifying for relief under section 341 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
