Skip Navigation
  • Home
  • About Us
  • National sites
  • Myacca
  • Blogs
  • ACCA Discuss
  • ACCA.TV
  • Podcasts
  • Accamail
ACCA - the global body for professional accountants


Advanced search
  • Join Us
  • Students & Affiliates
  • Members
  • Employers
  • Learning Providers
  • General Public
ACCA Homepage < ACCA UK < UK members < Technical Advisory < Technical advice and support < Tax < Corporation tax < 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • Ten things you should know about the directors' loan account
  • Finance Act 2012
  • New ways to register for taxes online
  • HMRC's Litigation and Settlement Strategy (LSS)
  • Saying Goodbye to ESC C16
  • Consultations
  • HMRC Penalties - Conspicuous Unfairness
  • Finance Bill 2012
  • Campaigns
  • IR35 consultation – is it really necessary?
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution Service
  • Seed enterprise investment scheme
  • Making a late tax appeal
  • IR 35 – new business entity tests
  • EIS/SEIS - Advance Assurance Application
  • Enterprise Investment Scheme - The Tax Reliefs Condensed
  • Capital Allowances and Buildings
  • HMRC Toolkits
  • Working Together Groups - Your Communication Channel with HMRC
  • An important tax case regarding penalties
  • Auf Wiedersehen HMRC
  • PAYE - Real Time Information
  • CPD and tax relief
  • Purchasing a company from an unconnected party
  • HMRC Agent Account Managers
  • Transfer Pricing - HMRC Manuals
  • Reasonable Excuse - September 2012 Update
  • Benefits in kind – reporting and dispensations
  • Small Business Tax Dispute Service
  • Keith Gordon
  • 3512112
  • HMRC Pilot to Improve Post Response Times
  • New HMRC taskforces target tax evaders
  • A pub crawl around capital allowances
  • HMRC - Tackling Tax Avoidance
  • HMRC Compliance Factsheets
  • HMRC iXBRL commitment
  • Finance (No.4) Bill 2010-12
  • Research and Development - Useful Links
  • Research & Development Tax Relief
  • HMRC Telephone Service
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008

top stories

  • Your PER questions answered Your PER questions answered - opens in a new window
  • ACCA moves online ACCA moves online - opens in a new window
  • Reminder as self-assessment deadline Reminder as self-assessment deadline - opens in a new window
  • Young need better jobs advice, says ACCA Young need better jobs advice, says ACCA - opens in a new window


  • See more news more
    See global news more
Send
Print
Share

Keith Gordon: Challenging Sharkey v Wernher

Challenging Sharkey v Wernher

Background

For many advisers, the House of Lords’ decision in Sharkey v Wernher is a distant memory from a training course.  And the facts were so obscure (concerning horses bred in a lady’s stud farm and transferred to her racing stables) that it would be tempting to overlook it.  However, the case is in fact authority for a principle that has a very wide application.

According to the House of Lords, whenever a trader takes an item of trading stock for personal use, the trader is required – for tax purposes at least – to account for the profit that would have been made had the stock been sold in the normal course of business.

For example, supposing a grocer takes a £1.50 loaf out of the business for personal use (and let’s assume that the loaf cost her 80p), the grocer is required to report a taxable profit of 70p in her tax accounts.

Clients can be forgiven for not knowing the rule – after all, it makes very little sense from a policy perspective.  The more sophisticated clients could even be justified in objecting to the rule, given that it contradicts both the normal rules of accountancy and the VAT treatment that would apply (assuming the stock were not, as in my example, zero-rated).

Nevertheless, the rule has been around since 1955 and HMRC will frequently adjust tax computations to reflect the rule when they spot such “appropriations”.

Challenging HMRC

Since the rule comes from a decision of the House of Lords, one might think that it is pointless arguing with it.  However, even House of Lords’ decisions are not immune from challenge.

In any event, their Lordships’ decision does contain one fundamental flaw.  The judges said that they were trying to work out what the accountancy treatment for such a transaction ought to be – they recognised that the approach of accountants was the key to their decision.  However, they did not have any formal accounting evidence before them: so they had to guess.  As it happens, they got it wrong.  Therefore, taxpayers have in fact been at liberty in the subsequent 57 years to reargue the point, this time with the benefit of the appropriate evidence.

The problem I find is that HMRC keep withdrawing their assessments in such cases, thereby preventing me from having my day in court.  But, I can be (partially) comforted by the fact that that is only my problem: after all, it is excellent news for clients.

Keith M Gordon is a barrister, chartered accountant and tax adviser.  He practises from Atlas Chambers (020 7269 7980, www.atlaschambers.com) where he provides tax advice and litigation support for accountants, tax advisers and lawyers.  Keith won the Chartered Tax Adviser of the Year category at the 2009 LexisNexis Taxation awards and can be contacted by e-mail at keithgordon@atlas-tax.co.uk.

Back to top

 
  • Contact us
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Site map
© 2010 ACCA