"I have amended your SDLT return to reflect my conclusion. · It previously showed that you were due to pay£0 tax. · It now shows that you are due to pay£38,360,000 . · The difference is£38,360,000 ."
"No SDLT is payable by B [the Appellant] on the sale from S [the MoD] by virtue of sub-sale relief undersection 45 (3) Finance Act 2003 . No SDLT is payable by FI [MAR] on the sale of the Property from B [the Appellant] to FI [MAR] by virtue of alternative property finance relief undersection 71A (2) Finance Act 2003 ."
“In this Part “notifiable arrangements” means any arrangements which— (a) fall within any description prescribed by the Treasury by regulations, (b) enable, or might be expected to enable, any person to obtain an advantage in relation to any tax that is so prescribed in relation to arrangements of that description, and (c) are such that the main benefit, or one of the main benefits, that might be expected to arise from the arrangements is the obtaining of that advantage.”
"Although the marginal note to a section cannot control the language used in the section, it is permissible to have regard to it in considering what is the general purpose of the section and the mischief at which it is aimed."
“The question is whether in aid of the interpretation of a statute the court may take into account the explanatory notes and, if so, to what extent. The starting point is that language in all legal texts conveys meaning according to the circumstances in which it was used. It follows that the context must always be identified and considered before the process of construction or during it. It is therefore wrong to say that the court may only resort to evidence of the contextual scene when an ambiguity has arisen… Again, there is no need to establish an ambiguity before taking into account the objective circumstances to which the language relates. Applied to the subject under consideration the result is as follows. In so far as the explanatory notes cast light on the objective setting or contextual scene of the statute, and the mischief at which it is aimed, such materials are therefore always admissible aids to construction. They may be admitted for what logical value they have. Used for this purpose explanatory notes will sometimes be more informative and valuable than reports of the Law Commission or advisory committees, government Green or White Papers, and the like. After all, the connection of explanatory notes with the shape of the proposed legislation is closer than pre-parliamentary aids which in principle are already treated as admissible: see Cross Statutory Interpretation (3rd edn, 1995) pp 160–161.”
"This section [section 75A] does not apply where subsection (1) (c) is satisfied only by reason of – (a) section 71A to 73… (b)…."
"Artificial transactions in land."
"I must accept that on my construction of the section, the side note reading "
"It is plain from the authorities... That, although it may be legitimate to look at the side note, nevertheless a side note is a very poor guide and will very rarely throw light on the intention of Parliament. The argument of counsel for the trustees really goes so far as to pray in aid a side note to limit, even qualify, the natural meaning of the words of the subsection. This is seeking, in my judgment, to derive from the side note more than can legitimately be derived from it as a matter of construction."
"Parliament has used a broad expression, namely the expression "in connection with"
"the acquisition by P of a lease deriving from a freehold owned or formerly owned by V…."
“ AH2135 - ITSA Appeals: Assessments, Amendments and Enquiries: Onus of proof: self-assessment, assessment or partnership statement inadequate Under TMA70/S50(7) the Commissioners have both the power and the duty to increase a self- assessment or HMRC assessment on appeal where it appears to them that it is inadequate (see Cain v Schofield 34TC364). Similarly, they may increase the amounts contained in a partnership statement if they consider them insufficient. The statute does not specify who has to show that the assessment etc is inadequate. It follows that the onus of proving that the assessment etc is inadequate must lie on the party who asserts that inadequacy. Usually it will be HMRC who assert that an assessment etc is inadequate. It will therefore be for you to show that the assessment etc should be increased. You will also have to produce evidence as to the amount by which the assessment etc needs to be increased.”
"This clause amends Finance Act… 2003 so as to counter schemes which attempt to avoid stamp duty land tax (SDLT)."
"This clause has been introduced to counter avoidance schemes which have been developed to avoid payment of SDLT."
"The clause inserts three new sections after section 75 of FA 2003. The first new section, section 75 A, describes how the anti-avoidance measure works and what sort of transaction it applies to, in particular what sort of scheme transactions it seeks to prevent."
"Section 75 A is an anti-avoidance provision. [HMRC] therefore takes the view that it applies only where there is avoidance of tax. On that basis, HMRC will not seek to apply section 75A where it considers transactions have already been taxed appropriately."
"Taxes are imposed on subjects by Parliament. A citizen cannot be taxed unless he is designated in clear terms by a taxing Act as a taxpayer, and the amount of his liability is clearly defined. A proposition that whether a subject is to be taxed or not, or that, if he is, the amount of his liability is to be decided (even though within a limit) by an administrative body, represents a radical departure from constitutional principle. It may be that the Revenue could persuade Parliament to enact such a proposition in such terms that the courts would have to give effect to it; but unless it has done so, the courts, acting on constitutional principles, not only should not, but cannot validate it. … When Parliament imposes a tax, it is the duty of the commissioners to assess and levy it on and from those who are liable by law. Of course they may, indeed should, act with administrative common sense. To expend a large amount of tax payers' money in collecting, or attempting to collect, small sums would be an exercise in futility; and no one is going to complain if they bring humanity to bear in hard cases. I accept also that they cannot, in the absence of clear power, tax any given income more than once. But all of this falls far short of saying that so long as they do not exceed a maximum they can decide that beneficiary A is to bear so much tax and no more, or that beneficiary B is to bear no tax. This would be taxation by self-asserted administrative discretion and not by law. As the judge [Walton J] well said, 'One should be taxed by law, and not be untaxed by concession.' "
" 75A Anti-avoidance (1) This section applies where– (a) one person (V) disposes of a chargeable interest and another person (P) acquires either it or a chargeable interest deriving from it, (b) a number of transactions (including the disposal and acquisition) are involved in connection with the disposal and acquisition ("the scheme transactions"), and (c) the sum of the amounts of stamp duty land tax payable in respect of the scheme transactions is less than the amount that would be payable on a notional land transaction effecting the acquisition of V´s chargeable interest by P on its disposal by V. "
"The majority in the Court of Appeal held that it was a sufficient answer to the appellant's argument to construe the words 'in connection with' as meaning 'having to do with'. This explanation of the meaning of the phrase was given by Macfarlane J in Re Nanaimo Community Hotel Ltd[1944] 4 DLR 638 . It was adopted by Somervell LJ in Johnson v Johnson[1952] 1 All ER 250 at 251 –252 ,[1952] P 47 at 50–51. It may be that in some contexts the substitution of the words 'having to do with' will solve the entire problem which is created by the use of the words 'in connection with'. But I am not, with respect, satisfied that it does so in this case, and Mr Holgate QC did not rely on this solution to the difficulty. As he said, the phrase is a protean one which tends to draw its meaning from the words which surround it. In this case it is the surrounding words, when taken together with the words used in the 1991 amending order and its wider context, which provide the best guide to a sensible solution of the problem which has been created by the ambiguity."
"…does not apply where subsection (1) (c) is satisfied only by reason of (a) sections 71A to 73…."
"(a) given by or under half of any one person by way of consideration for the scheme transactions, or (b) received by or on behalf of V… by way of consideration for the scheme transactions."
"The chargeable consideration for a transaction is, except as otherwise expressly provided, any consideration in money or money's worth given for the subject-matter of the transaction, directly or indirectly by the purchaser or a person connected to him."
"The use of Islamic finance was necessary (because of the parties involved or otherwise)"
"Tax in respect of a land transaction must be paid not later than the filing date for the land transaction return relating to the transaction."
"An enquiry extends to anything contained in the return, or required to be contained in the return, that relates – (a) to the question whether tax is chargeable in respect of the transaction, or to the amount of tax so chargeable…."