The decision in Moran v HMRC represents a clear victory for HMRC and highlights the serious consequences of inadequate record-keeping, particularly in complex offshore arrangements. Overview of Moran v HMRC In this case, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, concluding that Mrs Anne Moran was liable to Income Tax under sections 731–733 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (“ITA 2007”). The liability arose from her receipt of a benefit – namely, rent-free accommodation in a property owned by offshore company B. The property’s maintenance and repairs were funded by interest-free loans (repayable on demand) from offshore company A to company B. Both companies were held in separate offshore discretionary trusts, adding further complexity to the structure. What legal framework was considered? Income Tax Act 2007: • Sections 731–733: Transfer of Assets Abroad (TOAA) • Sections 737, 739, 742A: Motive defence European Union Law – Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): Free movement of capital Transfer of Assets Abroad (TOAA) – Under section 731 ITA 2007, tax is charged on income treated as arising to an individual under section 732, where a UK-resident individual receives a benefit provided out of assets made available through a relevant transfer or associated operations. The Tribunal found: The transfers of money by Mr Moran to the trustees of company A were ‘relevant transfers’ under section 716. The loans from company A to company B, used to fund property repairs, constituted ‘associated operations’. Mrs Moran’s rent-free occupation of the property, along with the substantial repairs funded by company B using the loans from company A (plus investment income), constituted taxable benefits. Motive defence Section 737 ITA 2007 provides an exemption from income tax under the TOAA regime if the taxpayer can satisfy HMRC that the transactions were not more than incidentally designed to avoid tax. Key points: The Tribunal had to assess whether, on the balance of probabilities, any of the transactions were more than incidentally designed for tax avoidance. The intentions of individuals involved in designing, effecting, or advising on the transactions (as defined in section 737(6)) were considered. The Tribunal concluded that one or more transactions were indeed more than incidentally designed for the purpose of avoiding tax. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal placed significant weight on a 2002 attendance note involving two professionals associated with the offshore companies. The note listed three purposes for the structure, one of which was ‘asset protection from the UK Inland Revenue’, interpreted by the Tribunal as an intention to shelter assets from UK taxation. EU Law Argument Article 63(1) TFEU prohibits restrictions on the free movement of capital between Member States and third countries. However, the Tribunal found that: Mr Moran had business interests outside the EU and there was insufficient evidence (e.g. bank statements) to demonstrate how funds were introduced. The loan from company A to company B did not involve any movement of capital from the UK. The Tribunal noted that HMRC would have taxed the benefit similarly if a UK company had provided rent-free accommodation. Therefore, Article 63 was not engaged. Key takeaways from Moran v HMRC Witness Preparation: Effective preparation for cross-examination and testimony is essential Record-Keeping: Maintaining contemporaneous records is critical, especially in complex offshore arrangements Substance Over Form: The Tribunal focused on the substance of the transactions rather than their formal structure Transfer of Assets Abroad (TOAA) Scrutiny: HMRC continues to scrutinise offshore structures under TOAA provisions, particularly where UK residents receive benefits How Morr & Co can help? If you have any questions or would like any further information on the content of this article, please do not hesitate to contact our Dispute Resolution team on 0333 038 9100 or email info@morrlaw.com and a member of our expert team will get back to you. Disclaimer Although correct at the time of publication, the contents of this newsletter/blog are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute, legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article. Please contact us for the latest legal position. Authored by Koyes Uddin Associate Solicitor Message Tags Insights On this page Contact our team today to find out more get in touch
