Ian Shiner and David Sheinman v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mann |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] UKUT 0596 (TCC),[2015] UKUT 0596 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Tax,3 November 2015 |
| Date | 03 November 2015 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
[2015] UKUT 0596 (TCC)
Appeal number: FTC/101/2014
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER)
ON APPEAL FROM:
FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (TAX CHAMBER)
(1) Ian Shiner
(2) David Sheinman Appellants
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents
TRIBUNAL: MR JUSTICE MANN
Sitting in public in London on 7th and 8th October 2015
Conrad McDonnell (instructed by Howard Kennedy LLP) for the Appellant
James Rivett (instructed by General Counsel & Solicitor to HMRC) for the Respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015
DECISION
Mr Justice Mann :
Introduction
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the First Tier Tribunal dated 23rd April 2014 (“the
Decision”) in which the FTT struck out part of the appellants’ respective cases. The
FTT gave permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The essence of the Decision
was that the relevant part, which complains that the imposition of tax legislation is, in
the circumstances, an improper restriction on the flow of capital for the purposes of
EU legislation, ought to be struck out because it had already been the subject of a
decision, adverse to the appellants, in a previous Court of Appeal decision given in
judicial review proceedings (Shiner and another v HMRC [2011] EWCA Civ 892).
Other grounds of appeal are unaffected.
2. There are two appellants – Mr Shiner and Mr Sheinman – each with their own cases.
However, their respective cases are, for practical purposes, identical and there is no
need to consider them separately. Identical facts, mutatis mutandis, apply to the other.
3. On this appeal, as below, the appellants were represented by Mr Conrad McDonnell
and HMRC by Mr James Rivett.
The facts and the nature of the dispute
4. The central facts are, at least for the purposes of this appeal, not in dispute. The FTT
identified them by a cross-reference to the earlier Court of Appeal decision. I use the
same source and set them out here, and I add subsequent events relevant to this
appeal, taking them from the Decision.
5. The appellants participated in what the Court of Appeal described as a marketed tax
avoidance scheme set up in the Isle of Man, which makes use of the Double Taxation
Arrangement (“DTA”) made with the Isle of Man in 1955. Taking Mr Sheinman’s
case, on 20th April 2005 he made the David Sheinman 2005 settlement, established
under the laws of the Isle of Man. Parleybrook Ltd of Douglas, IoM, is the trustee.
Under the terms of the trust deed the income is payable to Mr Sheinman as the
“Principal Beneficiary”. He transferred the sum of £10 to the trust company by
cheque; this was the “Initial Property” comprised in the trust fund, to be invested by
the trustee at its discretion. It is this £10 that was the principal focus of what is said to
be the “capital” whose movement is impeded by European legislation to which I will
To continue reading
Request your trial