Astall & Anor v Revenue and Customs

Astall & Anor v Revenue and Customs

The appeal was dismissed because the court held that the relevant statutory provisions must be interpreted purposively. The terms of issue relied upon by the appellants to qualify the securities as RDS had no practical reality and were inserted solely for tax avoidance. There was no real possibility of a deep gain as required by the statute, and the artificial contingencies could be disregarded. The Special Commissioner and the judge below made no error of law in so finding.

Parties
Appellant: John Astall; Appellant: Graham Edwards; Respondent: HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Tax Avoidance, Relevant Discounted Securities, Income Tax Relief
Tax Law Statutory Interpretation Tax Avoidance Relevant Discounted Securities Income Tax Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Astall

Appellant

Graham Edwards

Appellant

HM Revenue and Customs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the securities acquired by the appellants constituted 'relevant discounted securities' (RDS) under Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the court should apply a purposive interpretation to Schedule 13 and disregard artificial or commercially irrelevant terms
  3. 3 Whether the Special Commissioner erred in disregarding certain contingencies as uncommercial or practically certain not to occur

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the court held that the relevant statutory provisions must be interpreted purposively. The terms of issue relied upon by the appellants to qualify the securities as RDS had no practical reality and were inserted solely for tax avoidance. There was no real possibility of a deep gain as required by the statute, and the artificial contingencies could be disregarded. The Special Commissioner and the judge below made no error of law in so finding.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed