Green v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 396 (TC) (28 April 2014)

Green v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 396 (TC) (28 April 2014)

The Tribunal determined that the market value of the gifted Chartersea shares on 4 April 2008 was not the £1 per share claimed by Mr Green, nor the 30p per share asserted by HMRC, but a value to be determined based on the evidence, including the price paid for the company’s main asset, the circumstances of the listing, and the nature of the trades on the first day. The Tribunal found that the market value should reflect a realistic assessment of what a willing purchaser would pay, taking into account all relevant facts, and ordered the disallowance of relief to be re-determined accordingly.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 396
Parties
Appellant: Mr Nicholas Green; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Gift Aid Relief, Valuation of Shares, Charitable Gifts, Market Value Determination

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Nicholas Green

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision

  1. 1 What was the market value of the gifted Chartersea Limited shares on 4 April 2008 for the purpose of income tax relief under section 431 ITA 2007?
  2. 2 Was the arrangement designed to enhance relief or create artificial tax losses?
  3. 3 What is the relevance of market transactions on the first day of listing to the valuation?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal determined that the market value of the gifted Chartersea shares on 4 April 2008 was not the £1 per share claimed by Mr Green, nor the 30p per share asserted by HMRC, but a value to be determined based on the evidence, including the price paid for the company’s main asset, the circumstances of the listing, and the nature of the trades on the first day. The Tribunal found that the market value should reflect a realistic assessment of what a willing purchaser would pay, taking into account all relevant facts, and ordered the disallowance of relief to be re-determined accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The disallowance of relief on Mr Green’s claim is to be re-determined in accordance with the Tribunal’s findings on market value.