|
The Ramsay principle is the shorthand name given to the decision of the House of Lords in two important cases in the field of UK tax, reported in 1982: * Ramsay v. IRC, the full name of which is ''W. T. Ramsay Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, Eilbeck (Inspector of Taxes) v. Rawling'', and its citation is () A.C. 300. * IRC v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd., the full name of which is ''Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd.'', and its citation is () S.T.C. 30, H.L.(Sc.) In summary, companies that had made substantial capital gains had entered into complex and self-cancelling series of transactions that had generated artificial capital losses, for the purpose of avoiding capital gains tax. The House of Lords decided that where a transaction has pre-arranged artificial steps that serve no commercial purpose other than to save tax, the proper approach is to tax the effect of the transaction as a whole. The decision is not limited to capital gains tax, but applies to all forms of direct taxation, and is an important restraint on the ability of taxpayers to engage in creative tax planning. ==Facts (Ramsay v. IRC)== The important facts are set out in the following quotation from Lord Wilberforce:. :''() is an appeal by W. T. Ramsay Ltd., a farming company. In its accounting period ending May 31, 1973, it made a "chargeable gain" for the purposes of corporation tax by a sale-leaseback transaction. This gain it desired to counteract, so as to avoid the tax, by establishing an allowable loss. The method chosen was to purchase from a company specialising in such matters a ready-made scheme. The general nature of this was to create out of a neutral situation two assets one of which would decrease in value for the benefit of the other. The decreasing asset would be sold, so as to create the desired loss; the increasing asset would be sold, yielding a gain that it was hoped would be exempt from tax.'' The two assets in question were loans of equal amounts, which had an unusual condition: Ramsay Ltd. was entitled, once, to reduce the rate of interest on one loan, provided that the rate of interest on the other loan increased by the same amount. Ramsay Ltd. exercised this right, such that one loan became worth far more than its original value, and the other far less. The loan that had gained in value was disposed of in such a way that it was intended to be exempt from tax as "debt" (sec. 251 () TCGA 1992: Where a person incurs a debt to another, whether in sterling or in some other currency, no chargeable gain shall accrue to that (is the original ) creditor or his personal representative or legatee on a disposal of the debt, except in the case of the debt on a security (defined in section 132 )), while the loan that had fallen in value was disposed of in such a way that it was intended to be a deductible capital loss. Funding for the entire transaction was provided by a finance house, on terms such that the money would inevitably pass round in a circle, and back into their hands again, within a few days, with interest. The House of Lords rejected the idea that there was any exemption from tax under the "debt on a security" rule. However that was not the basis of their decision, which was a more far-reaching principle. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ramsay principle」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|