|
From 12 March 2008, businesses that appropriate
trading stock for a different purpose (e.g. for private use or longer-term
investment) will be treated as if they had sold the stock at full market
value, and the business will be taxed on any resultant notional profits,
notwithstanding the accounting treatment.
There has been a long-standing debate over
whether this type of transaction should be taken as creating notional
taxable profits, and if so, how the notional proceeds should be valued.
Following long-established
case law (Sharkey v. Wernher, 1955[1]),
HMRC have persisted in the general view that regardless of what money may or
may not change hands, or what value is put on the transaction for accounting
purposes, the appropriation of trading stock for private or other purposes
should be taxed as a market value sale (Statement of Practice A32, 1978).
However, to date this has
not been made explicit in statute. Alternative case law has supported a
contrary view (Mason v. Innes, 1967[2]).
Such was the uncertainty that the recent tax law rewrite could not fully
expose the point within the parameters of the original legislation.
Finance Act 1998 also complicated the matter by
stating that businesses are taxable under their profits computed according
to “generally accepted accounting practice, subject to any adjustment
required or authorised by law”. If HMRC’s practice in this area is not
explicit in law, then there is an argument in the taxpayer’s favour that
this 1998 statute rule overrides case law, and any taxable trading profits
should be based on accounting profits rather than market value.
Today’s announcement puts the matter beyond
debate for appropriations of stock from 12 March 2008. The appropriation of
stock for another purpose (e.g. private use, investment) is a taxable event,
and market value should be used for the calculation of taxable trading
profits. This has been presented by HMRC as the confirmation of the
prevailing treatment but clearly some will disagree.
Draft legislation indicates that where the transfer pricing rules apply
(which already require arm’s length prices for related party transactions),
these will take precedence. Likewise, the tax treatment is unchanged on the
appropriation of investment or private-use assets (or similar) into trading
stock, including the facility to elect to rollover gains into the base cost
of the stock in cases of appropriation of chargeable assets into trading
stock in a UK business.
|
Our view
We
welcome the clarification that the transfer pricing rules take
precedence over requirements that market value be imposed by case law or
statute.
|
______________________
|