Furniss v Dawson

Last updated

Furniss v. Dawson
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Citation(s) [1984] 1 All ER 530, [1984] AC 474, [1984] STC 153, [1983] UKHL 4
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman, Lord Roskill, Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Brightman

Furniss v. Dawson is an important House of Lords case in the field of UK tax. Its full name is Furniss (Inspector of Taxes) v. Dawson D.E.R., Furniss (Inspector of Taxes) v. Dawson G.E., Murdoch (Inspector of Taxes) v. Dawson R.S., and its citation is [1984] A.C. 474, or alternatively [1984] 2 W.L.R. 226.

Judicial functions of the House of Lords Historical judicial role of the UK House of Lords

The House of Lords of the United Kingdom, in addition to having a legislative function, historically also had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for impeachment cases, and as a court of last resort within the United Kingdom. In the latter case the House's jurisdiction was essentially limited to the hearing of appeals from the lower courts. Appeals were technically not to the House of Lords, but rather to the Queen-in-Parliament. By constitutional convention, only those lords who were legally qualified heard the appeals, since World War II usually in what was known as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords rather than in the chamber of the House.

Case law is a set of past rulings by tribunals that meet their respective jurisdictions' rules to be cited as precedent. These interpretations are distinguished from statutory law, which are the statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies, and regulatory law, which are regulations established by executive agencies based on statutes. The term "case law" is applied to any set of previous rulings by an adjudicatory tribunal that guides future rulings; for example, patent office case law.

United Kingdom Country in Europe

The United Kingdom (UK), officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, informally as Britain, is a sovereign country lying off the north-western coast of the European mainland. The United Kingdom includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another sovereign state, the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border, the United Kingdom is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the North Sea to the east, the English Channel to the south and the Celtic Sea to the south-west, giving it the 12th-longest coastline in the world. The Irish Sea lies between Great Britain and Ireland. With an area of 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi), the United Kingdom is the 78th-largest sovereign state in the world. It is also the 22nd-most populous country, with an estimated 66.0 million inhabitants in 2017.

Contents

Its effect was to extend the applicability of The Ramsay Principle. [1]

The Ramsay Principle

The most important background to Furniss v. Dawson was the decision of the House of Lords a few years earlier in W. T. Ramsay Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] A. C. 300. In the Ramsay case, a company which had made a substantial capital gain had entered into a complex and self-cancelling series of transactions which had generated an artificial capital loss. The House of Lords decided that where a transaction has pre-arranged artificial steps which serve no commercial purpose other than to save tax, then the proper approach is to tax the effect of the transaction as a whole.

A capital gain refers to profit that results from a sale of a capital asset, such as stock, bond or real estate, where the sale price exceeds the purchase price. The gain is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price. Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price.

Capital loss is the difference between a lower selling price and a higher purchase price, resulting in a financial loss for the seller.

Facts of the case

The facts of the case are of less significance than the general principle which arose from it. However, in summary, they are:

Limited company company in which the liability of members or subscribers of the company is limited

In a limited company, the liability of members or subscribers of the company is limited to what they have invested or guaranteed to the company. Limited companies may be limited by shares or by guarantee. The former may be further divided in public companies and private companies. Who may become a member of a private limited company is restricted by law and by the company's rules. In contrast, anyone may buy shares in a public limited company.

A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was greater than the amount realized on the sale. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals, and property. Not all countries implement a capital gains tax and most have different rates of taxation for individuals and corporations.

Isle of Man British Crown dependency

The Isle of Man, sometimes referred to simply as Mann, is a self-governing British Crown dependency in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Ireland. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who holds the title of Lord of Mann and is represented by a lieutenant governor. Defence is the responsibility of the United Kingdom.

Arguments

The Dawsons argued:

  1. that the CGT rule mentioned above worked in their favour and they could not be taxed until such time (if ever) as they sold their shares in Greenjacket Investments Ltd.; and
  2. that the Ramsay Principle did not apply, since what they had done had "real" enduring consequences.

The tax authorities argued:

  1. that Greenjacket Investments Ltd. only existed as a vehicle to create a tax saving;
  2. that the effect of the transaction as a whole was that the Dawsons had sold the operating companies to Wood Bastow Holdings Ltd.;
  3. that because the intervening stages of the transaction had only been inserted to generate a tax saving, they were to be ignored under the Ramsay Principle, and instead the effect of the transaction should be taxed; and
  4. that the transaction being "real" (which is to say, not a sham) was not enough to save it from falling within the Ramsay Principle.

The Court of Appeal had given a judgement agreeing with the Dawsons on these points.

The decision

The judgement of the court was given by Lord Brightman. The other four judges (Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman, Lord Roskill and Lord Bridge of Harwich) gave shorter judgements agreeing with Lord Brightman's more detailed judgement.

The court decided in favour of the Inland Revenue (as it then was: it is now HM Revenue and Customs).

HM Revenue and Customs United Kingdom government non-ministerial department

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is a non-ministerial department of the UK Government responsible for the collection of taxes, the payment of some forms of state support and the administration of other regulatory regimes including the national minimum wage.

The judgement can be viewed as a battle between:

two conflicting ideas which could, at their extremes, be expressed as:

Lord Brightman came down firmly in favour of an extension of the Ramsay Principle. He said that the appeal court judge (Oliver L. J.), by finding for the Dawsons and favouring the Westminster rule, had wrongly limited the Ramsay Principle (as it had been expressed by Lord Diplock in a case called IRC v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd.). Lord Brightman said:

The effect of his [Oliver L. J.'s] judgment was to change Lord Diplock's formulation from "a pre-ordained series of transactions ... into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from the avoidance of a liability to tax" to "a pre-ordained series of transactions ... into which there are inserted steps that have no enduring legal consequences." That would confine the Ramsay principle to so-called self-cancelling transactions.

Oliver L. J. had given considerable weight to the fact that the existence of Greenjacket Investments Ltd. was real and had enduring consequences. At the end of the transaction, the Dawsons did not own the money which had been paid by Wood Bastow Ltd.: instead, Greenjacket Investments Ltd. owned that money and the Dawsons owned Greenjacket Investments Limited. Legally speaking, those are two very different situations. However Lord Brightman saw this as irrelevant. In any case where a predetermined series of transactions contains steps which are only there for the purpose of avoiding tax, the tax is to be calculated on the effect of the composite transaction as a whole.

Consequences

Furniss v. Dawson has had far-reaching consequences. It applies not only to capital gains tax but to all forms of direct taxation. It also applies in some of the jurisdictions where decisions of the English courts have precedential value.

Related Research Articles

Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case" as used in the United States.

"Ramsay principle" is the shorthand name given to the decision of the House of Lords in two important cases in the field of UK tax, reported in 1982:

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Act of the Parliament of Australia, currently registered as C2018C00304

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is an act of the Parliament of Australia. It is one of the main statutes under which income tax is calculated. The act is gradually being rewritten into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and new matters are generally now added to the 1997 act.

Capital gains tax (CGT), in the context of the Australian taxation system, is a tax applied to the capital gain made on the disposal of any asset, with a number of specific exemptions, the most significant one being the family home. Rollover provisions apply to some disposals, one of the most significant of which are transfers to beneficiaries on death, so that the CGT is not a quasi estate tax.

Tax shelters are any method of reducing taxable income resulting in a reduction of the payments to tax collecting entities, including state and federal governments. The methodology can vary depending on local and international tax laws.

John Anson Brightman, Baron Brightman, PC was a British barrister and judge who served as a law lord between 1982 and 1986.

<i>Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1976 High Court of Australia tax case concerning arrangements where stockbrokers Mullens & Co accessed tax deductions for monies subscribed to a petroleum exploration company. The Australian Taxation Office held the scheme was tax avoidance, but the court found for the taxpayer.

<i>Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner Of Taxation, was a High Court of Australia case concerning the tax position of company owners who sold to a dividend stripping operation. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claimed the proceeds should be treated as dividends, but the Court held they were a capital sum like an ordinary investment asset sale.

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Peabody was a 1994 High Court of Australia tax case concerning certain transactions made by the Peabody family business. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) sought to apply the Part IVA general anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

Peter Millett, Baron Millett British judge

Peter Julian Millett, Baron Millett, GBS, PC, is a non-permanent judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and barrister of the United Kingdom.

English trust law creation and protection of asset funds

English trust law concerns the creation and protection of asset funds, which are usually held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, but also share a history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts were mostly used where people left money in a will, created family settlements, created charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investments, especially in unit trusts and pension trusts, where trustees and fund managers usually invest assets for people who wish to save for retirement. Although people are generally free to write trusts in any way they like, an increasing number of statutes are designed to protect beneficiaries, or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and the Charities Act 2011.

United Kingdom company law corporate law of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

Directors' duties are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors' duties are analogous to duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries, and by agents to principals.

<i>Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd</i>

Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd, was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia on 6 August 1998. The case determined the circumstances under which it is unconscionable for a lender to enforce a transaction against a wife. It is considered a very important case in Australian Equity (law), as it continues to be the leading case in spouse-surety cases.

<i>Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada</i> decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada, 2011 SCC 63, [2011] 3 SCR 721, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the applicability of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule ("GAAR") in the interpretation of the Income Tax Act (Canada). ("ITA")

<i>Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd</i>

Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd[2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 All ER 505, [2012] 1 AC 383 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation. The principle has two key aspects, of which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that only the first was relevant on the facts of the case:

  1. The anti-deprivation rule, which is aimed at attempts to withdraw an asset on bankruptcy or liquidation or administration, thereby reducing the value of the insolvent estate to the detriment of creditors.
  2. The pari passu rule, which reflects the principle that statutory provisions for pro rata distribution may not be excluded by a contract which gives one creditor more than its proper share.

Securities Transaction Tax (STT) is a tax payable in India on the value of securities transacted through a recognized stock exchange. As of 2016, it is 0.1% for delivery based equity trading. The tax is not applicable on off-market transactions or on commodity or currency transactions. The original tax rate was set at 0.125% for a delivery-based equity transaction and 0.025% on an intra-day transaction. The rate was set at 0.017% on all Futures and Options transactions. STT was originally introduced in 2004 by the then Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram to stop tax avoidance of capital gains tax. The government reduced this tax in the 2013 budget after a lot of protests for years by the brokers and the trading community. The revised STT for delivery-based equity trading is 0.1% on the turnover. For Futures, the tax has been reduced to 0.01% on the sell-side only. For Equity Options, the STT has been reduced to 0.05% on the sell side of the premium amount. The rest of the tax structure remains as is. Securities transaction tax is a direct tax. Securities Transaction Tax is levied and collected by the union government of India. STT can be paid by the seller or the purchaser depending on the transaction. The Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 defines Securities the transaction of which are taxable under STT. Provisions are given in the Security Transaction Tax sub-head that appears under the list of Acts on the Income Tax Website. https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/pages/acts/securities-transaction-tax-act.aspx

The anti-deprivation rule is a principle applied by the courts in common law jurisdictions in which, according to Mellish LJ in Re Jeavons, ex parte Mackay, "a person cannot make it a part of his contract that, in the event of bankruptcy, he is then to get some additional advantage which prevents the property being distributed under the bankruptcy laws." Wood VC had earlier observed that "the law is too clearly settled to admit of a shadow of doubt that no person possessed of property can reserve that property to himself until he shall become bankrupt, and then provide that, in the event of his becoming bankrupt, it shall pass to another and not to his creditors."

The Duke of Westminster's case was an often cited case in tax avoidance. The full title and citation was Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duke of Westminster [1936] A.C. 1; 19 TC 490.

References

  1. Tutt, Nigel (1985). Tax Raiders: The Rossminster Affair. London: Financial Training Publications. pp. 308 ff. ISBN   0-906322-76-6.