10. CGT - computation Flashcards
Oram v Johnson
Expenditure must be actual to be AE
- T did own work and AE’d it
- it is not AE
- T did not actually incur expense
- no AE for notional cost
- matches ITTOIA (Mason v Innes)
Chaney v Watkis
AE doesn’t have to be building works, it can be change to the “state”
- T let mum-in-law live with him so house would be vacated
- If cash was paid to her, that would be an AE
- provided vacant possession (changed interest in house, person buying would get without someone in residence)
Blackwell v R&C Comrs
AE –> “state changed”
SUM PAID TO BE RELEASED FROM AGREEMENT TO SELL SHARES TO ONE PERSON
- this increased value of asset
- enabled higher bid to be accepted
Aberdeen Construction Group v IRC
AE must be identifiable change in state or nature of the asset
- money spent to waive loan
- not AE (didn’t make identifiable change in asset sold)
Emmerson v Computer time
payment required to make disposal does not itself permit AE
- rent arrears paid to secure consent to assign lease
- not AE
HMRC v Julian Blackwell
£175mn paid to be released from obligations so he can sell shares
NOT AE
- asset = bundle of rights and obligations
- obligations = personal to T (does not affect buyer)
- payment was not reflected in shares
- not AE
Alison v Murrey
pay premium to vest funds in her absolutely
NOT AE (title defence expenditure)
- not paid to establish her interest but to acquire something greater (absolute interest)
- cost only AE if within category of acquisition cost
IRC v Richard’s Executors
AE for valuing relevant part of deceased’s estate
- YES AE
- doesn’t matter that valuation was for estate duty too as well as establishing title (dual purpose)
IRC v Chubb’s ST
in deemed disposal/reacquisition, notional expenses are not deductible but actual expenses are
cost of preparing deed = AE
Jerome v Kelly
A assigned contract to sell to B
disposal –> at conveyance (so by B not A)
B not charged
underwood v HMRC
S.28 does not define disposal to be a contract but deems when disposal was made
