Talk:S660A

Article on Information World Review
This entry was written by members of the Professional Contractors Group, a potentially biased party. See this article for details. I know nothing about this topic, but someone with knowledge of the field should take a look for any POV in the article. —BrianSmithson 14:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the terms settlor and beneficiary in this article, and completely re-wrote the final paragraph to explain the legislation slightly more clearly. Nichola Ross Martin FCA

Taxpayer wins s660a case in CoA
Today (15 December 2005) Arctic System won in the Court of Appeal against a claim that s660 applied.

A copy of the judgement can be found here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1553.html

Lord Justice Carnwath said in the judgement;

'The lack of a clearly ascertainable legislative purpose underlines the need for caution in extending the concept of settlement beyond the scope of existing jurisprudence. The Revenue's position in this case seems to me a significant extension. For the first time, they seek to apply the concept to what has been found to be a normal commercial transaction between two adults, to which each is making a substantial commercial contribution, albeit not of the same economic value. Such a difference, by itself, is not enough to my mind to take the arrangement into the realm of "bounty", as it has been understood in the existing cases. If the legislature wishes such an arrangement to be brought within a special regime for tax purposes, clearer language is necessary to achieve it.'

The Professional Contractors Group announced the result this morning on their website http://www.pcg.org.uk/LatestNews/10161.html PaulSC 14:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)