The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Curzon Capital Limited, TC 06949
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Kevin POOLE |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKFTT 0063 (TC) |
| Respondent | Curzon Capital Limited |
| Appellant | The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Reference | TC 06949 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2019] UKFTT 0063 (TC)
TC06949
Application number: TC/2017/05528
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR
HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Applicants
-and-
CURZON CAPITAL LIMITED
Respondent
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE KEVIN POOLE
Sitting in public at Taylor House, Rosebery Avenue, London on 10-12 July, 13 September
and 18 October 2018
Mark Fell, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and
Customs, for the Applicants
Alison Graham-Wells, counsel, for the Respondent
DOTAS – Application for order that certain arrangements are notifiable (or alternatively that
they are to be treated as notifiable) – sections 306A & 314A Finance Act 2004 – whether
arrangements “notifiable arrangements” – yes – whether respondent “promoter” – no –
application refused
1
DECISION
Introduction
1. This decision relates to an application made HMRC (unusually, in this case, the
Applicants rather than the Respondents) for an order pursuant to section 314A Finance Act
2004 (“FA04”) that certain specified arrangements are “notifiable” arrangements within the
meaning of section 306 FA04 (part of the so-called “DOTAS” regime) or, in the alternative, an
order pursuant to section 306A FA04 that the same arrangements are to be treated as so
notifiable.
2. In the interests of brevity and clarity, I will refer throughout this decision to the
Applicants as “HMRC” and to the Respondent as “CCL”. References to sections are to sections
in FA04 unless otherwise stated.
The facts
3. I received witness statements and heard oral testimony from Officer David Wood of
HMRC, Christopher Derricott, Chief Executive of CCL and a draft witness statement of
William Graham, former director of CCL, who unfortunately died in consequence of a riding
accident on 31 January 2018 before he was able to finalise and sign his witness statement. The
draft produced to me had been prepared by Mr Graham and emailed by him to CCL’s counsel
for review on 29 January 2018. I also received a bundle of documents.
4. I find the following facts.
5. CCL was set up by Dr Derricott and Mr Graham in 1999. At all material times it was
authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (or the predecessor regulator). Its
regulatory status was “small corporate finance adviser”. It has never provided tax advisory
services in the normal sense of that phrase. Dr Derricott had worked in financial services since
1979 and Mr Graham since 1987.
6. CCL has acted as a sponsor and operator of a number of unregulated collective
investment schemes. It has also provided investment advice to various funds. More recently, it
has provided financial administration services of various types. In particular, it has provided
administration services to a pension fund which invested in car loans.
7. In early 2011, Mr Graham was approached by one Neil Masters (“NM”) and an associate
of his called Simon Wilson (“SW”) to enquire whether CCL would be interested in providing
some administration services for a set of arrangements, to be called “Capital Contracts”, which
had been designed to reduce the taxable income of those who chose to participate in them. NM
and SW operated through a number of entities, and it was not clear whether the approach was
made by them in their personal capacity or on behalf of one or more of those entities.
References to “NM” in this decision should be read as encompassing all of them unless the
context requires otherwise. CCL had provided administration services since 2010 to a set of
arrangements called “Teak Syndicates”, also operated by NM (who Dr Derricott believed had
designed the “Capital Contracts” arrangements). I infer that the approach in relation to Capital
Contracts arose as a result of that previous connection.
8. The Capital Contracts arrangements (“the Arrangements”) were described to Mr Graham
as being known to HMRC as a “contractor scheme” or “contractor loan scheme”. The
prospective role of CCL was described to him as entailing:
To continue reading
Request your trial