UK: The First-Tier Tax Tribunal Has Decided That A Scheme To Avoid Tax By Temporarily Devaluing Consideration Loan Notes Did Not Work

Last Updated: 13 September 2012
Article by Ashley Greenbank

In Blumenthal v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 497, the FTT has decided that a scheme to avoid capital gains tax on the redemption of certain consideration loan notes (originally in the form of non-QCBs) by artificially devaluing them shortly before redemption and then varying them so as to make them QCBs was not effective. The conversion of the non-QCBs into QCBs was held to be effective but, as a result of the application of the Ramsay principle and a drafting error in the deed of variation, the attempt to devalue the loan notes (without affecting the redemption price payable to the taxpayer) did not succeed. Furthermore, the FTT held that, although the taxpayer drew HMRC's attention to the scheme in the white space of his tax return, this disclosure was not adequate to prevent HMRC from counteracting the scheme by issuing a discovery assessment.

The facts of the case (somewhat simplified) are as follows. In 1999, the taxpayer and 5 other vendors sold their shares in a trading company to O2 in exchange for loan notes in O2. These loan notes were non-QCBs, because they contained an option for redemption in US$ at the rate prevailing three days before redemption. The taxpayer's loan notes had a nominal value of about £329,000 and he rolled over a gain of about £294,000 into the notes.

Redemption of the loan notes was due to occur on 25 March 2004, at which time the rolled-over gain would be treated as arising for CGT purposes. The taxpayer sought advice from Brian White of Deloitte about his imminent liability to CGT and, in February 2004, he implemented a scheme designed to avoid that liability. It appears from the mechanics of the scheme and from other comments by the FTT in its decision that some or all of the other five vendors must have implemented the same scheme.

Contingent provision for the loan notes to convert into QCBs

On 13 February 2004, the taxpayer and O2 entered into a Deed of Variation of the loan notes. It provided that, if on any day between 16 February and 17 March 2004 the US$/£ exchange rate had moved by at least 1.5 per cent from the rate on the first day of that period, the provision for redemption in US$ at the rate three days before redemption would, on the first day on which such rate movement occurred, be deleted and replaced by a provision for redemption in US$ at the rate on redemption. A loan note is not prevented from being a QCB by reason only of a provision for redemption in a foreign currency at the rate (against sterling) prevailing at redemption (TCGA 1992 s.117). The requirement for the exchange rate to move by at least 1.5 per cent was intended to ensure that the conversion of the loan notes into QCBs was outside the control of the parties and, therefore, not pre-ordained. However, the requirement was highly likely to be met and, in early 2004, was in fact being met on about four out of every five days. The FTT held that it was an anti-Ramsay device which could be disregarded in any application of the Ramsay principle (IRC v Scottish Provident Institution [2004] UKHL 52).

Devaluation of the loan notes

The Deed of Variation further provided that, if between 16 February and 21 March any loan notes were held by a non-current loan noteholder, the redemption price was to be 3 per cent of nominal value. The reason for this provision was that:

  • when non-QCBs are converted into QCBs, there is no disposal but the chargeable gain or allowable loss that would have arisen if the loan notes had been sold for a consideration equal to their market value is calculated (such gain or loss being frozen until a subsequent disposal of the loan notes without the benefit of the exemption for gains on QCBs) (TCGA 1992 s.116); and
  • "market value" is the price which the loan notes might reasonably be expected to fetch on a sale in the open market (TCGA 1992 s.272).

Accordingly, the idea was that, if the loan notes had been offered for sale on the date between 16 February and 17 March 2004 on which conversion occurred, no purchaser in the open market who was not a current loan noteholder would have offered more than 3 per cent of the nominal value of the loan notes to acquire them.

The Deed of Variation also provided that, if between 16 February and 21 March any loan notes were held by a current loan noteholder and four or more of them had died, the redemption price was to be 3 per cent of nominal value. This means that, if the loan notes had been offered for sale on the conversion date, no purchaser in the open market who was a current loan noteholder was likely to offer the full nominal value of the loan notes to acquire them, because, if four of the six current loan noteholders died in the period, he would make a substantial loss on redemption. However, given the unlikelihood of the "four dead men" clause coming into effect, it is debatable how great a devaluation was brought about by this provision and the FTT regarded it as minimal.

The final instrument of devaluation was a deed of covenant entered into by the six loan noteholders in favour of a charity of which Mr White was a trustee. It provided that, if the covenantor acquired loan notes for less than par, he would pay double the difference to the charity. This effectively removed all possibility of the current loan noteholders making a profit from an acquisition of loan notes (after taking the payment to charity into account) and was intended to remove them from the potential field of purchasers of loan notes when assessing their market value under TCGA 1992 s.116.

Effectively, therefore, in determining the price which the loan notes might fetch in a hypothetical sale in the open market, no purchaser who was not a current loan noteholder would offer more than 3 per cent of par and no current loan noteholder would bid at all. Of course, none of this altered the taxpayer's ability to redeem (or his expectation that he would redeem) his loan notes for £329,000 on 25 March 2004 (unless 4 of the 6 died).

Redemption of the loan notes and tax claim

In the event, nobody died and redemption occurred on 25 March 2004 at £329,000. The taxpayer claimed a loss of £25,000 in his tax return for 2003-04 on the basis that the market value of the loan notes on the date of conversion was just under £10,000 (about 3 per cent of par).

Was there an effective conversion of the loan notes into QCBs?

Based on Harding v HMRC 79 TC 885, HMRC argued that the loan notes remained non-QCBs, even after the contingent provision in the Deed of Variation for the loan notes to convert into QCBs came into effect, because they still "made provision" (admittedly of no further effect) for redemption in a foreign currency at a rate prevailing other than at redemption. This argument was rejected by the FTT on the basis of the distinction, drawn in Klinke v HMRC [2010] STC 2032, between a provision (such as in Harding) under which the currency option lapses (without the loan note ceasing to "make provision" for the option) and a variation of the loan notes which deletes the option to redeem in a foreign currency at a rate prevailing other than at redemption (with the result that the loan note no longer "makes provision" for the option).

Nor did the Ramsay principle prevent the loan notes from being successfully converted into QCBs. There was a composite transaction (despite the anti-Ramsay device) but the true effect of that transaction was to change the exchange rate under the currency option from that prevailing three days before redemption to that prevailing at redemption. That made the loan notes QCBs. In any case, the provisions of TCGA 1992 s.117 relating to redemption in a foreign currency were highly prescriptive and did not, therefore, easily lend themselves to a "purposive" Ramsay approach. This justified HMRC's normal practice of accepting that currency redemption clauses in consideration loan notes are effective to make them non-QCBs, even though they are inserted purely for tax reasons and there is no intention actually to redeem the notes in any currency other than sterling.

Was there an effective devaluation of the loan notes?

Apart from the Ramsay principle and a drafting error, the amendments made to the loan notes by the Deed of Variation were effective to devalue the loan notes, at least for the purposes of the statutory hypothetical sale in the open market. HMRC argued, on the basis of AG for Ireland v Jameson (1905) 2 IR 218, that the statutory test required an evaluation of the amount which a purchaser would pay to stand in the vendor's shoes (ie £329,000 or thereabouts). This argument was tried and failed in Grays Timber Products Ltd v HMRC [2010] UKSC 4. It did not fare any better in Blumenthal. The statutory test requires an evaluation of the price which a hypothetical purchaser would pay to acquire the asset (taking account of the rights and liabilities which would apply to him, not those which applied to the vendor if different).

The Ramsay principle

The FTT held that, under the Ramsay principle, the proper construction of the valuation provisions of TCGA 1992 s.116 and s.272 required a purposive approach. On that basis, it was necessary to take a realistic view of the facts. Parliament intended that the concept of market value should capture the true economic value of the asset being valued. Accordingly, in this case, "market value" was a reference to the real worth of the loan notes, not a value which had been artificially manipulated for tax purposes to produce a temporarily depressed value during a short period in which an actual sale of the loan notes was a wholly unrealistic possibility. This manipulated value was not what the statutory provisions, purposively construed, envisaged as the "market value" of the notes. A month later the taxpayer received £329,000 on redemption of the notes - as intended all along.

This is an interesting application of the Ramsay principle, as it was not a normal case of applying a tax provision to the real rights acquired, and liabilities entered into, by the taxpayer stripped of those elements which were wholly artificial or unrealistic. It was a case of applying those real rights and liabilities to a hypothetical transaction (a notional sale in the open market). It is, therefore, a modest development of the Ramsay principle. It will be interesting to see if it is challenged on appeal.

The drafting error

By mistake, the provisions reducing the redemption proceeds to 3 per cent of par were only given effect during the period between 16 February 2004 and 21 March 2004. However, to be effective in reducing the price which a purchaser would pay for the loan notes, those provisions should have been made to last until at least 25 March 2004 when actual redemption was due to occur.

The FTT considered the various authorities on the correct approach to the construction of contracts and the circumstances in which, to give effect to the apparent intention of the parties, a mistake could effectively be disregarded in construing the contract. In this case, the FTT held that the wording of the Deed of Variation was unambiguous and could not be re-written so as to give effect to the apparent intention of the parties. That would be to correct the contract, not construe it. Correction of a contract requires an action for rectification.

Discovery assessment

The final point considered by the FTT was whether HMRC were precluded, by the disclosure made by the taxpayer in the white space of his tax return, from raising a discovery assessment to recover the CGT due on the redemption of the loan notes. Materially identical white space disclosures had been made by two other vendors which had been "picked up" by their inspector during the enquiry window.

The white space disclosure mentioned the redemption of the taxpayer's £329,000 loan notes, their previous conversion into QCBs and the fact that their value at that time was only about £10,000. The FTT held that, in the absence of a more detailed explanation of how the scheme worked, the disclosure might have alerted an officer of HMRC to make enquiries but it would not have made him aware of the fact that insufficient tax had been paid. There was, however, no need for an effective white space disclosure to label the transaction a "tax avoidance scheme". Accordingly, HMRC were not precluded from raising a discovery assessment.

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

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

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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