Recent Tax Cases reinforce the message : Get Advice : Get It Right : Document It.
The case of D. George shows the common promise of “you will be looked after on a third party sale” can fall foul of horrid tax consequences if there is no advance advice and documentation.
On a separate, and totally different technical argument, a taxpayer and spouse undertook (for presentational purposes) a development project through an associated company, which they owned jointly. Circumstances, with a crash in the development value, made their ideas change. In the end, the company was wound up without repaying the director’s loan which funded the development work. As a result, the owners were not deemed to have incurred the crucial enhancement expenditure on the development, and so obtained no tax relief on £250,000 paid out.
Painful lessons on both counts.
1. Get Advice
2. Get It Right
3. Document It.
If in doubt, repeat step one!
Accountants and clients used to the broad brush “commercial” approach to computing trading profits can get caught out by the different and stricter rules for calculating capital gains.
Payments which may make sense, or even be thought essential from a commercial perspective are not necessarily then allowable for capital gains tax purposes.
This is demonstrated by the recent case of J. Blackwell. In exchange for £1m, Mr Blackwell agreed to act exclusively in voting his shareholding in BP Holdings in favour of the Taylor and Francis Group who wished to purchase BP Holdings. Later another prospective purchaser came along for BP Holdings. In order to extricate himself from the first agreement Mr Blackwell paid Taylor and Francis Group £17.5m which he then claimed under S38 TCGA 1992 as a deduction against his subsequent sale of the BP Holdings shares to the second purchaser.
The Upper Tier Tribunal found against him on the grounds that the expenditure was not reflected in the value of the asset disposed of to the purchaser. Admittedly, it put him in a position to make the disposal, by releasing him from the previous restrictions, but it did not enhance the value of the shares themselves. Similarly, the Courts held the payment did not create or establish any new rights over the underlying shares themselves.
This principle can be a factor in helping clients decide whether to accept an offer, by understanding what it would be worth after tax. It can often be in point where a client is considering an offer from a developer for (say) housing. On this principle, if the developer is buying a cleared site, where a bulldozer has taken down perhaps years of “enhancement expenditure” on the former trade site, then it is likely HMRC will seek to deny the cost of the previous building works, perhaps increasing the gain by a material amount.
Care in understanding the facts is crucial.