Financing in UK Law

They also carried out an assessment of the borrowing requirements in the event that the takeover offer succeeded. Together with Schroders and Warburgs they attended a number of board meetings. Shearman & Sterling advised on US anti-trust issues and provided an analysis of the impact of US securities laws. FPC Greenaway are printers and their services related to printing the offer documentation, listing particulars, circulars to shareholders and some press releases.

I am unable to see how the cost of any of this can fairly be described as part of the cost of acquisition in the sense that brokerage fees, payments for financing and stamp duty obviously are, and the Special Commissioners have reached their conclusion, in my judgment, by asking themselves the wrong question.

The dispute about the recoverability of residual input tax in relation to the taxable supplies of vehicles centres on the fact that none of the relevant portion of overheads attributable to the retail sector is recovered as part of the price of the vehicle.

In my judgment the sense of this letter, and of the earlier letters and discussions, is that as broker and sub-broker, Cenkos and Mr Crema were in it together. Any other arrangement would be rather uncommercial, placing the whole risk of non-payment by GPV on Cenkos. There was an expected fund of brokerage to be received from GPV. They would share in it 70:30 in relation to investments raised by Mr Crema.

Once the taxpayer has identified the payment the question to be asked is: did he obtain anything - anything at all - used or to be used for the purposes of his business in return for that payment? This will normally consist of the supply of goods or services to the taxpayer. But it may equally well consist of the right to have goods delivered or services rendered to a third party.

There is nothing to prevent EMED Tartessus, if it has the cash available, from paying the Deferred Consideration even though the Deferred Consideration has not become due for payment. Indeed, clause (6)(d)(iv)(B) specifically requires EMED Tartessus to apply any excess cash for this purpose.

I see no difficulty in the contractual concept that, as between the appellants and their sub-purchasers, the appellants sold as principals, but that, as between themselves and the respondents, those goods which they were selling as principals within their implied authority from the respondents were the respondents' goods which they were selling as agents for the respondents to whom they remained fully accountable.