Canada: U.K. "Round the World" Scheme Grounded - Determining Where Central Management and Control Resides Becomes More Complicated

It was a bright and calm day when Mr. Smallwood, a U.K. resident, decided to suggest that a Jersey Trust of which he was the settlor, and in which he maintained an interest, should dispose of certain shares. Mr. Smallwood obtained advice from accountants in Bristol that if the trust sold the shares the gain would be attributed to him because of a provision in the taxing statute that would apply "if the trustees were not resident in the United Kingdom during any part of the year". The Bristol advisors then informed Mr. Smallwood that there was an off-the-peg "Round the World" tax scheme that was intended to eliminate the tax. At this point, the storm clouds began to gather.

The RTW scheme

In implementing the RTW scheme, the Jersey trustee was replaced on December 19, 2000 with a Mauritius trustee, and the Mauritius trustee was in turn replaced by Mr. and Mrs. Smallwood as trustees on March 2, 2001, prior to the April 5 tax year-end of the trust under U.K. tax law. The intention was that when the shares were sold during January of 2001 the trust's capital gain would be protected from U.K. tax by virtue of the provisions of the U.K.-Mauritius Tax Treaty. Further, as Mr. and Mrs. Smallwood, being U.K. residents, would be trustees "for part of the year" the attribution rule quoted in the preceding paragraph would not apply and no tax would be payable on the gain in the U.K.

Issues on appeal

The primary question was whether the Treaty applied to exempt the trust's gain from U.K. tax. The threshold issue was whether the matter of residence fell to be determined at the date of the disposal or more generally within the year of the disposition. Clearly the trust was, at least, resident in the U.K. from March 2 until April 5.

On July 8, 2010, the Court of Appeal held in HMRC v. Smallwood & Anor, [2010] EWCA Civ 778, that the issue of whether the taxpayer should be resident in a particular state at the time of disposal or at some other point in time is an issue for each state to decide as part of its own taxation regime. The Treaty must be assumed to have been drafted in a way that contemplates any tax treatment of capital gains based on residence or similar criteria. "Resident of a contracting state" means chargeable to tax in that state on account of residence and, for this purpose, one has to take into account the tax treatment of the gain under the domestic legislation of both contracting states regardless of the period of residence which gives rise to the liability. The Treaty accommodates legislation under which a gain is made taxable in the U.K. by virtue of residence in a period after the gain has occurred.

Place of effective management / central management and control

The Court concluded that the trust was resident in both Mauritius and the U.K. under each jurisdiction's domestic legislation. The issue then fell to be determined under the tie-breaker rule in the Treaty based on the place of effective management ("POEM"). The judges referred to comments of Chadwick L.J. in Wood v. Holden, [2006] EWCA Civ 26, indicating that it was difficult to draw any distinction between the concepts of POEM and central management and control ("CMC"), the later being the terminology generally used to describe the test in cases dealing with the residence of corporations.

The Court referred to the OECD commentary on Article 4(3) of the Model Convention, which provides that "the POEM is the place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the entity's business are in substance made. An entity may have more than one place of management, but it can only have one place of effective management at any one time." What has to be identified is the place where the real top-level management of the trustee occurred rather than day-to-day administration of the trust.

It was found as a fact by the Special Commissioners that the appropriate meetings took place in Mauritius and the necessary resolutions were passed in Mauritius by the Mauritius trustee. The books and records were properly maintained. While there was a "confident expectation" that the Mauritius trustee would choose to sell the shares, there was no agreement that the trustee would behave in a certain way or would make certain decisions. Its duties as a trustee were laid down in the legislation. If it had not been in the interest of the beneficiaries, the trustee would not have sold the shares. For example, if the share price dropped dramatically, and if the fund manager had advised against the sale, then the trustee would have decided not to sell.

However, the facts surrounding the appointment of the Mauritius trustee led the Court to conclude that the real top level management, or the realistic, positive management of the trust, remained in the United Kingdom. The sale of the shares was motivated by U.K. tax planning reasons. The details relating to the actual sales were found to be low level management decisions, as there was no doubt the shares would be sold; the real top level management decisions or the realistic, positive management decisions of the trust, to dispose of all the shares in a tax efficient way, had already been, and continued to be, taken in the United Kingdom. Mr. Smallwood had the power to appoint new trustees.

With reference to Wood and DeBeers Consolidated Mines Ltd. v. Howe, [1906] AC 455, the Court adopted a two-prong test in deciding where POEM or CMC resides. The first question is whether (i) CMC is exercised through the constitutional organs of the vehicle in question, or (ii) the functions of those constitutional organs are usurped, as in Unit Construction v. Bullock, [1960] AC 351. If the functions have not been usurped, the test requires that a second question be asked, namely whether there is an "outsider" that (iii) proposes, advises and influences the decisions which the constitutional organs take in fulfilling their functions, or (iv) dictates the decisions which are to be taken. If either (ii) or (iv) occurs, POEM or CMC will generally reside where the usurper or outsider makes its decisions.

In Smallwood, the POEM test inevitably led to the question of whether the effective decision by the Mauritius trustees to sell the shares was taken by the Board of Directors of the trustee (albeit on the advice of, and at the request of, the U.K. advisors), or whether the Mauritius trustee effectively ceded any discretion in the matter to the U.K. advisors by agreeing to act in accordance with their instructions. With "suitable hesitation" the majority of the Court agreed that the POEM of the Mauritius trustee and of the trust was in the U.K. There was a scheme of management of this trust which went above and beyond the day-to-day management exercised by the trustee for the time being, and the control of it was located in the United Kingdom.

The battle in Smallwood has been close. HMRC won before the Special Commissioners, lost on appeal to the High Court, and won by a 2-to-1 margin in the Court of Appeal with two goals "for" in the 89th minute of play. The only true basis for distinguishing the case from Wood might appear to be a change in judicial tolerance for schemes that have no purpose other than tax avoidance.

Earlier jurisprudence in this area

The facts in Wood were strikingly similar. A scheme was devised and implemented by tax advisors to avoid U.K. tax. As part of this scheme, a special purpose Dutch corporation had a limited role of signing documents to authorize an agreement that appeared to have been reached in the U.K. The primary issue was whether the POEM of the Dutch company was in the Netherlands or the U.K. The Special Commissioners were not satisfied that CMC was not in London, concluding that:

...the only acts of management and control of the Dutch company were the making of the board resolutions and the signing and execution of documents in accordance with those resolutions. We do not consider that the mere physical acts of signing resolutions or documents suffice for actual management. Nor does the mental process which precedes the physical act. What is needed is an effective decision as to whether or not the resolution should be passed and the document signed or executed. Such decisions require some minimal level of information. The decisions must to some extent be informed decisions. Merely going through the motions of passing or making resolutions and signing documents does not suffice. Where the geographical location of the physical acts of signing and executing documents is different from the place where the actual effective decision that the documents be signed and executed is taken, we consider that the latter place is where CMC actually abides.

However, the High Court, with the subsequent approval of the Court of Appeal, overturned the decision of the Special Commissioners on the basis that the holding company did what it needed to do in its jurisdiction of purported residence and there was nothing improper about the U.K. parent ensuring that the board of the Dutch company knew what its parent desired its decisions to be. The fact that special purpose vehicles have little to do does not mean that they are agents or nominees, provided they do the little that is required of them in a proper fashion.

In Laerstate v. HMRC, [2009] UKFTT 209 (TC), the issue also was whether the POEM of a taxpayer was in the Netherlands or in the U.K. The Tribunal stated that the "whole picture must be considered in each case" and the director in the Netherlands did not possess the minimum information necessary for anyone to be able to decide whether to follow the instructions of the guiding hand. Those decisions were taken in the U.K. and the CMC and the POEM of the taxpayer was therefore in the U.K.

Canadian implications

For a Canadian judge who wishes to do so, Smallwood can easily be distinguished on either the facts or the specific U.K. legislation dealing with trusts. However, it might signal, together with Laerstate, a growing lack of judicial tolerance for schemes that appear to be designed for no purpose other than to avoid tax.

In Garron Family Trust v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 450, Madam Justice Woods found that the residence of a trust depended on where its CMC was located. It should be noted that Smallwood decided where the POEM or CMC of a trust was located, but did not address the particular issue of whether POEM had to be taken into account in determining where a trust was resident for the purposes of domestic law. The taxpayer's appeal in Garron is scheduled to be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal on September 30, 2010.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions