Kevin John Pitt v The Commissioners for HMRC

Kevin John Pitt v The Commissioners for HMRC

On a purposive construction of Schedule 13 Finance Act 1996 and a realistic view of the facts, the Appellant did not sustain a loss as claimed because he did not acquire the securities in a commercial sense, and only the market value was paid for them. The transactions were artificial and solely tax-motivated. Audley v HMRC was a relevant judicial ruling, and the Appellant's failure to take corrective action after the follower notice was unreasonable, justifying the penalty.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Kevin John Pitt; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber, Uk) / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Tax Avoidance, Relevant Discounted Securities, Follower Notice Penalty, Statutory Interpretation, Connected Persons, Tax Relief, Schedule 13 Finance Act 1996
Tax Law Income Tax Tax Avoidance Relevant Discounted Securities Follower Notice Penalty Statutory Interpretation Connected Persons Tax Relief +1 more

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Kevin John Pitt

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber, Uk) / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a loss arose under paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996 on the acquisition and disposal of relevant discounted securities
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant acquired the securities and paid the amount claimed
  3. 3 Whether the penalty for failure to take corrective action after a follower notice was properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

On a purposive construction of Schedule 13 Finance Act 1996 and a realistic view of the facts, the Appellant did not sustain a loss as claimed because he did not acquire the securities in a commercial sense, and only the market value was paid for them. The transactions were artificial and solely tax-motivated. Audley v HMRC was a relevant judicial ruling, and the Appellant's failure to take corrective action after the follower notice was unreasonable, justifying the penalty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The substantive appeal against the closure notice is dismissed.
  • The penalty appeal is dismissed.