<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
        xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
        xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
        xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
        xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
        xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
        xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
        >
<channel>
        <title>Weil Tax BLOG - Feed</title>
        <atom:link href="https://tax.weil.com/category/uk-tax/dispute/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://tax.weil.com/category/uk-tax/dispute/</link>
        <description>Views and developments from the Tax Department at Weil</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 15:41:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <language></language>
        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
        
                                        <item>
                        <title>Rollover relief and CGT planning: Wilkinson</title>
                        <link>https://tax.weil.com/insights/rollover-relief-and-cgt-planning-wilkinson/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:03:44 +0000</pubDate>
                                                        <dc:creator>Erica Rees</dc:creator>
                                                        <dc:creator>Weil Tax Blog</dc:creator>
                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">https://tax.weil.com/?p=1996</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[The recent case of Wilkinson v HMRC involves a commonplace scenario in corporate transactions, where shares in a target entity are often sold in exchange for some combination of cash, shares and/or loan notes issued by the buyer or a member of the buyer’s group. The issue of non-cash consideration can serve a commercial purpose: for example, by keeping a seller invested in the relevant company, thus incentivising their personal interest in the company’s success. There may also be tax considerations, including the sellers availing of “rollover relief”, and these were the focus of the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT’s) decision in Wilkinson,where the FTT concluded that avoidance of liability to capital gains tax (CGT) was not a main purpose of the transaction. The case highlights the fact-specific nature of applying anti-avoidance provisions, demonstrating in particular that the way in which an “arrangement” is defined may have a significant impact on the ascertainment of its purpose. ]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent case of Wilkinson v HMRC involves a commonplace scenario in corporate transactions, where shares in a target entity are often sold in exchange for some combination of cash, shares and/or loan notes issued by the buyer or a member of the buyer’s group. The issue of non-cash consideration can serve a commercial purpose:</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/insights/rollover-relief-and-cgt-planning-wilkinson/">Rollover relief and CGT planning: Wilkinson</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>Take Notice of the Notice Provisions!</title>
                        <link>https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/take-notice-of-the-notice-provisions/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:44:10 +0000</pubDate>
                                                        <dc:creator>Oliver Walker</dc:creator>
                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tax.weil.com/?p=487</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[<p>The Court of Appeal has unanimously held that contractual claims under a share purchase agreement were barred by the operation of a limitation clause that required the buyer to include reasonable details of the claims, including the grounds, in its notice to the sellers.&#160; As the buyer did not set out which warranties it was</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/take-notice-of-the-notice-provisions/">Take Notice of the Notice Provisions!</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Court of Appeal has unanimously held that contractual claims under a share purchase agreement were barred by the operation of a limitation clause that required the buyer to include reasonable details of the claims, including the grounds, in its notice to the sellers.&#160; As the buyer did not set out which warranties it was</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/take-notice-of-the-notice-provisions/">Take Notice of the Notice Provisions!</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>Ordinary Share Capital: Clarity in Relation to Dividend Rights</title>
                        <link>https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/uk-focus-latest-thinking/ordinary-share-capital-clarity-in-relation-to-dividend-rights/</link>
                        <pubDate>Sun, 01 Oct 2017 17:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
                                                        <dc:creator>Oliver Walker</dc:creator>
                                                        <dc:creator>Stuart Pibworth</dc:creator>
                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tax.weil.com/?p=483</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[<p>The Upper Tribunal has overturned the decision of the First-tier Tribunal in McQuillan v HMRC, finding that non-dividend bearing redeemable shares constituted ordinary share capital for the purposes of section 989 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (section 989) ([2017] UKUT 344 (TCC)) (see Focus “Ordinary share capital: can a negative prove a positive?”, www.practicallaw.com/2-631-2725).</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/uk-focus-latest-thinking/ordinary-share-capital-clarity-in-relation-to-dividend-rights/">Ordinary Share Capital: Clarity in Relation to Dividend Rights</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Upper Tribunal has overturned the decision of the First-tier Tribunal in McQuillan v HMRC, finding that non-dividend bearing redeemable shares constituted ordinary share capital for the purposes of section 989 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (section 989) ([2017] UKUT 344 (TCC)) (see Focus “Ordinary share capital: can a negative prove a positive?”, www.practicallaw.com/2-631-2725).</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/uk-focus-latest-thinking/ordinary-share-capital-clarity-in-relation-to-dividend-rights/">Ordinary Share Capital: Clarity in Relation to Dividend Rights</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>Ordinary Share Capital: Can a Negative Prove a Positive?</title>
                        <link>https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/ordinary-share-capital-can-a-negative-prove-a-positive/</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
                                                        <dc:creator>Oliver Walker</dc:creator>
                                                        <dc:creator>Stuart Pibworth</dc:creator>
                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tax.weil.com/?p=465</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[<p>The recent decision in McQuillan v HMRC highlights the challenges faced by taxpayers seeking to apply correctly those parts of the UK tax code that require interpretation in the absence of conclusive definition ([2016] UKFTT 305 (TC)). McQuillan addresses whether shares with no dividend rights can be said to carry a fixed rate of dividend</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/ordinary-share-capital-can-a-negative-prove-a-positive/">Ordinary Share Capital: Can a Negative Prove a Positive?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent decision in McQuillan v HMRC highlights the challenges faced by taxpayers seeking to apply correctly those parts of the UK tax code that require interpretation in the absence of conclusive definition ([2016] UKFTT 305 (TC)). McQuillan addresses whether shares with no dividend rights can be said to carry a fixed rate of dividend</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/ordinary-share-capital-can-a-negative-prove-a-positive/">Ordinary Share Capital: Can a Negative Prove a Positive?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>Overpaid Tax: Another Win for Compound Interest</title>
                        <link>https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/overpaid-tax-another-win-for-compound-interest/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
                                                        <dc:creator>Oliver Walker</dc:creator>
                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tax.weil.com/?p=454</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[<p>Dismissing in its entirety an appeal brought by HM Revenue &#38; Customs (HMRC), the Court of Appeal has confirmed that, in certain circumstances, EU law entitles taxpayers to claim compound interest on tax overpaid by mistake (Littlewoods Limited and others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2015] EWCA Civ 515). In the</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/overpaid-tax-another-win-for-compound-interest/">Overpaid Tax: Another Win for Compound Interest</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dismissing in its entirety an appeal brought by HM Revenue &#38; Customs (HMRC), the Court of Appeal has confirmed that, in certain circumstances, EU law entitles taxpayers to claim compound interest on tax overpaid by mistake (Littlewoods Limited and others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2015] EWCA Civ 515). In the</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/overpaid-tax-another-win-for-compound-interest/">Overpaid Tax: Another Win for Compound Interest</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>Overpaid Tax: Claiming for Compound Interest</title>
                        <link>https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/overpaid-tax-claiming-for-compound-interest/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 13:35:28 +0000</pubDate>
                                                        <dc:creator>Oliver Walker</dc:creator>
                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tax.weil.com/?p=443</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[<p>Following a long-awaited decision by the High Court, taxpayers can now, in certain circumstances, claim compound interest on tax overpaid by mistake (Littlewoods Retail Limited and others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2014] EWHC 868 (Ch)). The court also held that, where compound interest is payable in connection with overpaid VAT,</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/overpaid-tax-claiming-for-compound-interest/">Overpaid Tax: Claiming for Compound Interest</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following a long-awaited decision by the High Court, taxpayers can now, in certain circumstances, claim compound interest on tax overpaid by mistake (Littlewoods Retail Limited and others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2014] EWHC 868 (Ch)). The court also held that, where compound interest is payable in connection with overpaid VAT,</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://tax.weil.com/uk-tax/straight-to-the-point/overpaid-tax-claiming-for-compound-interest/">Overpaid Tax: Claiming for Compound Interest</a> appeared first on <a href="https://tax.weil.com">Weil Tax BLOG</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
        </channel>
</rss>