ukscblog.com Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the ukscblog.com

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host ukscblog.com. Currently, hosted in United Kingdom and its service provider is Idaq Ltd. .

the related websites

matrixlaw.co.uk olswang.com dailymail.co.uk mtaq.org.au paradoxlondon.com blog.hostelbookers.com selfridges.com 

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called nginx containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

uk supreme court blog editors: dan tench, jack ballantyne, emma cross, emma boffey and rose falconer (cms) hugh tomlinson qc, matthew ryder qc, anthony fairclough and rebecca steels (matrix) home about archive the uksc table of cases privacy & cookies search: case comment: project blue ltd v hmrc [2018] uksc 30 29 friday jun 2018 cms case comments ≈ 0 comments tags share it twitter facebook linkedin steven sieff, consultant in the tax team at cms, comments on the decision handed down by the uk supreme court in the matter of project blue ltd v commissioners for her majesty’s revenue and customs [2018] uksc 30. on 13 june 2018, the uk supreme court delivered its judgment in the project blue sdlt case (read our preview of the decision here ). the case was decided by majority decision in hmrc’s favour, overturning the previous court of appeal decision . it is a huge victory for hmrc in tax terms and a significant one for advisers going forward. lord hodge (on behalf of lady hale, lord hughes and lord lloyd-jones) delivered the majority view, with only lord briggs dissenting. factual background the transaction at the heart of the case was the sale of the site of the former chelsea barracks in london by the ministry of defence to the sovereign wealth fund of the state of qatar, funded in part by a quatari bank. the total consideration actually paid was one of the issues in the case but at its highest could have been £1.25 billion, so potential sdlt of some £50 million. and that doesn’t take account of any cases which were waiting for the outcome of this one. the quantum of tax at stake and the parties concerned would probably have been enough to make this case high profile, but it also marked the first time the courts had seriously been asked to consider the potentially wide ranging sdlt anti avoidance legislation. so a keenly awaited decision. sdlt issues the transaction in question was structured in such a way that it appeared to string two sdlt relieving provisions together to result in no sdlt being payable. this was achieved by a sale from the ministry of defence (‘mod’) to a ‘project blue’ company (‘pbl’) owned by state of quatar, followed immediately by a subsale of the land to the funding bank. the funding bank leased the land back to pbl and at the same time put/call options were granted over the freehold between the bank and pbl. in theory this meant that the initial transfer to pbl was not taxed due to the rules allowing subsale relief in place at the time and that the further transfer and leaseback were also not taxed due to the exemptions in place to allow shari’a compliant funding. the first key question was whether this scheme worked. following on from the question of whether the scheme worked was the question of if or how the sdlt anti-avoidance legislation would apply. did the scheme work or not? the majority judgement overruled the court of appeal’s finding that that the scheme did not work. the court of appeal had concluded on the basis of previous sdlt case law ( hmrc v dv3 rs lp [2013] ewca civ 907) that the effect of the subsale provisions was that no land interest moved to pbl. this in turn meant pbl had no interest to transfer on for the purposes of the shari’a exemption and therefore the structure could not qualify for exemption. so the first technical question before the supreme court was whether to follow the dv3 logic on the effect of the subsale. readers with long memories and a particularly keen interest in sdlt will perhaps recall that certain commentators (the author included) believed at the time that the reasoning behind the dv3 decision was flawed. rather than disregarding the entire contract, a better view would have been that the legislation removes the taxing point for this contract. sdlt applies on substantial performance or completion and the wording of the subsale rules was to ignore these taxing points in relation to the original contract. that is not the same as denying the effect of the contract entirely. so this case would have been an excellent opportunity to ‘correct’ dv3. unfortunately, although there are passages where the lords come close to reanalysing the old subsale provisions (lord briggs comes closest at para 116), they never go so far as to dismiss dv3. as it turned out they didn’t need to. despite the subsale having the technical effect of not transferring the interest to pbl for sdlt purposes, the lords found that on an analysis of the shari’a exemption, it was sufficient that pbl was the bank’s customer and in real terms had the right to subsell the land. so the net effect of these findings was an effective sdlt saving scheme. readers who have not been following project blue closely would be forgiven for thinking that an effective sdlt scheme is good news for the taxpayer. but in this case the opposite is true. the court of appeal had found that the scheme did not work, but this turned out to be good news for the taxpayer because it meant that hmrc were now out of time to go after the funding bank having been ‘relentlessly pursuing the wrong taxpayer’ (to quote counsel for the taxpayer and lord briggs at para 129 of the supreme court judgment) from close to the outset. it also meant that the anti-avoidance legislation never came into play because there had been no effective scheme. so now that the supreme court had reversed the position by finding that there was an effective scheme, this opened the gateway to the anti-avoidance legislation. sdlt anti-avoidance legislation this is the bit that advisers were waiting for. the first real test of hmrc’s perceived ‘nuclear’ weapon, the sdlt anti-avoidance provisions. one of the curious things about the sdlt anti-avoidance is that there is no mention in the statute of any motive test. we know it is anti-avoidance because it says that at the heading of the provisions, but that aside there is no mention of motive or purpose. this contrasts with most anti-avoidance where the legislation makes it clear that it’s only supposed to catch you if you’re being naughty. some observers may have been hoping that the court might take the opportunity to ‘read in’ some type of purpose test (it is anti-avoidance legislation after all) but most (including hmrc) were anticipating that in this respect the supreme court was likely to follow the obiter dicta comments of the court of appeal in finding that motive/purpose is simply not relevant when applying the provisions. and indeed, this proved largely to be the case. the question of whether this structure was put in place deliberately to avoid sdlt or whether the saving arose fortuitously is never really discussed by the supreme court although parts of the dissenting judgement appear to apply that the effect was achieved innocently, notwithstanding the findings of the first tier tribunal that pbl had not established that it had entered into the shari’a compliant financing for religious reasons. either way, motive didn’t matter and the anti-avoidance legislation still applied. the result of this was that the supreme court gave us a guide as to how to apply the untested anti-avoidance. the entire judgement is of interest but the majority of the debate centred around who should be identified as the purchaser for the notional transaction that the anti-avoidance demanded and what amount of consideration was to be taxed. this still mattered a great deal as hmrc had only pursued pbl for the tax, so a finding that the bank had to be seen as the notional purchaser would have constituted a result for the taxpayer. perhaps unsurprisingly, once the court had engaged the anti-avoidance provisions they found without too much difficulty that pbl was the correct purchaser. the taxpayer was therefore on the hook. to make matters worse, the amount that should properly be treated as the consideration was the highest possible amount payable. in theory this would have been £1.25 billion, but because that amount was never in fact drawn down

URL analysis for ukscblog.com

http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-r-steinfeld-anor-v-secretary-of-state-for-international-development-2018-uksc-32/
http://ukscblog.com/case-preview-project-blue-limited-v-commissioners-for-her-majestys-revenue-and-customs/
http://ukscblog.com/category/new-judgments/
http://ukscblog.com/in-the-supreme-court-wc-18-june-2018/
http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-project-blue-ltd-v-hmrc-2018-uksc-30/
http://twitter.com/home?status=case
comment:
project
blue
ltd
v
hmrc
[2018]
uksc
30+http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-project-blue-ltd-v-hmrc-2018-uksc-30/
http://ukscblog.com/feed/
http://www.linkedin.com/sharearticle?mini=true&url=http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-project-blue-ltd-v-hmrc-2018-uksc-30/&title=case
comment:
project
blue
ltd
v
hmrc
[2018]
uksc
30&source=ukscblog
http://ukscblog.com/the-uksc/
http://ukscblog.com/category/case-previews/
http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-project-blue-ltd-v-hmrc-2018-uksc-30/
http://ukscblog.com/in-the-supreme-court-wc-25-june-2018/
http://ukscblog.com/table-of-cases/
http://ukscblog.com/category/article-50/
http://ukscblog.com/case-preview-playboy-club-london-ltd-ors-v-banca-nazionale-del-lavoro-spa/
supremecourt.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain Name: UKSCBLOG.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1529407621_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.tucows.com
Registrar URL: http://www.tucowsdomains.com
Updated Date: 2015-08-07T21:08:22Z
Creation Date: 2008-11-20T11:00:09Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-11-20T11:00:09Z
Registrar: Tucows Domains Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 69
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Name Server: NS0.UKFAST.NET
Name Server: NS1.UKFAST.NET
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/
>>> Last update of whois database: 2017-08-21T01:20:43Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

  REGISTRAR Tucows Domains Inc.

SERVERS

  SERVER com.whois-servers.net

  ARGS domain =ukscblog.com

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME ukscblog.com

  CHANGED 2015-08-07

  CREATED 2008-11-20

STATUS
clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited

NSERVER

  NS0.UKFAST.NET 81.201.128.133

  NS1.UKFAST.NET 81.201.143.133

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .